[Paul_Denton]

OK. So you're first talking about deterrence. Minimal deterrence seems to do the job very nicely--no one's lobbed any nukes at China, and they have a pretty small arsenal for a supposed major power. So, on that count, there's still no argument to be made for a larger nuclear arsenal. As for preventing an invasion--that's what the Navy's supposed to do by commanding the ocean, isn't it? And how are the ChiComs supposed to invade America, anyway?

Your the one that said nukes were useless and too expensive. If the Soviets invaded europe we would use nukes because they had a lot more troops and tanks than we do. How well would the Navy do without nukes? In a strictly conventional war extremely well. But the Chicoms have Sunburn missiles which can be armed with either conventional or 300 kiloton nuclear warheads. Not to mention the standard communist tactic of swarm attacks, overwhelimg defenses with SHEER NUMBERS. I never said China could invade us. Where did you get that idea? I meant THEY PREVENT OTHER COUNTRIES FROM ATTACKING AND INVADING. For example. Soviets crossing through alaska ring a bell? they didnt because we have nukes.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"Your the one that said nukes were useless and too expensive."

In response to an argument for more nukes. I asked why buy more nukes.

Either learn to read, or go back to the DF.