should the us reduce its amount of nukes? is there any need to have thousands apon thousands?
should the us reduce its amount of nukes?
- Thread starter Us citizen
- Start date
Us Citizen, Could you please make a statement reguarding your feelings on this subject.
The reason the US maintains such a large stockpile of nuclear weapons is called "deterrance". Very simple. "We have them in large quanities..you don't" Is there a need? Probally not.
The reason the US maintains such a large stockpile of nuclear weapons is called "deterrance". Very simple. "We have them in large quanities..you don't" Is there a need? Probally not.
The US nuke stockpile has actually decrease since the end of the Coldwar. SALT treaties were the basis for this. But the current US nuclear doctrine has set the minimum US arms to "just enough" to destroy the world 1 times over versus 10 times over in the Cold War days.
The_Zergling
Junior Member
Depends on what aspect you are talking about. Strategically it's always an advantage to have the capability to ruin the whole world for everyone. Morally it's completely hypocritical. The new US defense secretary perhaps touched up on this a bit, saying something along the lines of, "Iran is seeking nukes... it's surrounded by nuclear neighbors; Russia to the north, Pakistan to the east, Israel to the west, the US in the persian gulf..."
Apparently Israel wasn't happy about that. But I digress.
In addition, the amount of nukes "needed" depends on the target... considering the current situation, nukes would probably be used only against countries that don't have them (or have them but don't have means of delivery) but have strong conventional militaries.
Ok then i think that it is pointless having stupid amounts of these weopons ... waste of money, never gonna be used,
Around 4,225 warheads have been removed from deployment but have remained stockpiled as a "responsible reserve force" on inactive status. Under the May 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, the U.S. pledged to reduce its stockpile to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012, and in June 2004 the Department of Energy announced that "almost half" of these warheads would be retired for dismantlement by then
I think we'll see major reductions in large warheads, but an increase in smaller, battlefield / bunker-busting nukes.
That is the point. Nuclear weapons are actually a stabilizing effect on the world. The Cold War would have gone hot if it weren't the fear of mutually assured destruction. An unused nuclear weapon is a weapon that has done its job: DETERRANCE.
US does not fear IRAN getting nukes. The country itself is still subject to deterrance. The moment it uses its nukes, it is fair game for retaliation.
What the US fears is if these nukes gets into the hands of terrorist who do not have ties to a certain country.
Apparently it costs the US $18 billion a year to maintain its nuke arsenal.
Also, here's a video I saw a while ago that gives a few good reasons for the US to reduce its arsenal:
What do you you guys think of the points the guy was making? I personally was too distracted by the oreos. Mmmm... oreos...
Also, here's a video I saw a while ago that gives a few good reasons for the US to reduce its arsenal:
What do you you guys think of the points the guy was making? I personally was too distracted by the oreos. Mmmm... oreos...
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Personally I would like to see the US and Russia, as the powers with by far the most warheads, engage in another round of talks to reduce their stockpiles. I don't think we'll see the end of nuclear weapons in our lifetime, but if we are to stop proliferation, the big powers need to show they're serious about reducing their arsenals. Currently I see no real reason why either Moscow or Washington need so many warheads, regardless of whether they're in "reserve" or not.