Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why we do not need to Disarm
TomClancy77    2/22/2002 9:07:10 AM
The U.S. should not completely disarm our strategic arsenal. The other so-called Nuclear Countries are still reasearching, not throwing away their nukes. We will just be left defenseless when it really matters. If India and Pakistan start launching nukes at eachother, and we support one and not the other, and the other decides to launch at us, where are we then?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Phoenix Rising    RE:Why we do not need to Disarm   2/22/2002 9:40:10 AM
TC77, Almost no one is advocating complete nuclear disarmament on the part of the U.S. On the other hand, every sensible intelligence estimate and in-house review says that the current U.S. arsenal of 7000+ active warheads is far more than needed for strategic deterrence. Furthermore, if India and Pakistan started firing nukes at each other, I doubt the U.S. would be inclined to get involved. If we did, however, neither India nor Pakistan currently has the capability to strike at the U.S., and each is more concerned about its regional position to bother putting heavy effort into ICBM's capable of striking the U.S. They're more worried about each other, and India also worries about China. The bottom line is that a strike force of 2000 nuclear warheads is more than enough to deter any rational leader. When it comes to irrational leaders, well, if 2000 nukes can't deter them, there's no reason to believe that 7000 would. Therefore, we could easily afford to disarm 5000 warheads ... not just put them in storage, but actually disarm them ... which would spare us the expense of keeping them on the alert, reduce the risk of accidental launch, and provide a positive example that other countries would hopefully follow, particularly Russia, who has vast nuclear stockpiles guarded by an increasingly ineffective military. --Phoenix Rising
 
Quote    Reply

pfd    RE:Why we do not need to Disarm   2/23/2002 9:26:52 PM
While I agree, you are forgeting the original equation of having to 'ride out' a bolt from the blue hit. The perverse split is that we wanted a resonable sufficiency of ICBMs coupled with SLBMs (best known as the last laugh hit). Both the US and USSR were hit by bolts from the blue. That combined with the fear of technological creep (read hangover from German scientists) made paranoia rampant. Enter the economists reclothed as nuclear theorists and you have a witch's brew of intellectualism and paranoia. OK-how do we build down and in what direction. Dump the bombers? Too good for attacking helpless countries with no air defences (metal throwers) Dump the subs (crap range-no silo busting fears) Dump the ICBMs (lose the 20 minutes to satisfaction). Needs much thought.
 
Quote    Reply

Moffmaster    RE:Why we do not need to Disarm   3/15/2002 2:12:49 AM
Quote:The U.S. should not completely disarm our strategic arsenal. The other so-called Nuclear Countries are still reasearching, not throwing away their nukes. We will just be left defenseless when it really matters. If India and Pakistan start launching nukes at eachother, and we support one and not the other, and the other decides to launch at us, where are we then? Unquote Then you are dead!
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics