The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.
Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.
No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.
Personally I don't have a problem with this. It costs a lot every year to maintain and secure nuclear weapons. The less around, the lesser chance of accidents and theft.
300 would be enough to take out any enemy.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Russia can't afford to keep theirs secure or operational so I think they will draw down but not admit it. China, North Korea, & Iran might increase their nuclear arsenal but the US could still knock them all out.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I think Russia has been up grading theirs the last 5 years...so I have been told...this is a scary thing for sure...not many of us will be around if there is such a war....
outdoor338 wrote: I think Russia has been up grading theirs the last 5 years...so I have been told...this is a scary thing for sure...not many of us will be around if there is such a war....
Translated, they are replacing old, dangerous designs with more modern units.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The armed forces have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over.
With an 80 percent reduction - we can only destroy the world twice (darn - shucks).
Even if there are no corresponding reductions from other would-be adversaries - I do not think a reduction in strategic nuclear weapons would compromise the security of the USA.
I suppose my main concern would not be the number of warheads - but the number of modalities with which I can deter possible adversaries. You need a certain number of warheads - in a variety of places, and a variety of platforms, in order to project an adequate threat. (I think that number is greater than 300 --- but less than the current 1500). Besides - realtors in northeastern Colorado are dying for the opportunity to sell vacant silos (what an interesting market niche!).
The below report was authored by a relatively knowledgeable resource:
I'd point out that nuclear weapons aren't that effective against a distributed enemy (i.e. - terrorists).
I'd also point out that two of the most significant arms-reduction treaties - (START and SORT) were signed by members of the Bush family (father and son). SORT cut the number of warheads by 50 percent.
Overall, I think a cut in warheads is fiscally sensible. I suspect the congressional reps from Wyoming, South Dakota, and Nebraska won't like this plan. (land-based assets are not that essential for projecting force --- a terrorist from - say Uzbekistan really isn't going to care about them, very much --- by comparison - park a couple of ballistic subs off the coast of Iran, and you'll get the mullahs to the table really quick).
The President has approved a significant reduction in the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile to take effect by the end of 2007. The President's decision, made on the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman with the full support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander, United States Strategic Command, follows a major reduction previously announced in 2004. As a result, the U.S. nuclear stockpile will be less than one-quarter its size at the end of the Cold War.
