Replies

LOL! 2800 is not “overkill” when you consider the cost of failed deterrence.

You are aware how much of the world we are trying to deter and how many warheads are aimed at us, right?

WW2 it was easy to pick 2 targets- try narrowing your target list in this world- in a multi theater, multi front war - and then project to 20 years from now since that is what today's decisions affect.

Or maybe you agree with the brilliant obama Harvard academic strategic thinkers who think the world will be a less dangerous place 20 years from now, with sane logical leaders in full control of their own WMD, if the US halves its deterrence?

If we have 2800 warheads now, it's not because of the bellicosity of our past presidents and Pentagon, but because of the threat(s) we face and the prudent planning decisions they made to posture us to deter an attack, or to defend us if one begins.

this fixation on reducing US nukes- UNLITERALLY- is simply Barry carrying out his thesis he wrote as a goofy illiterate affirmative action college senior.

Check it out. Maybe he got better grades in military strategery than he did in Economics. We can only hope.

I was mistaken in my original estimate of nuclear weapons. As of January 2007 the US has a total number 9,962 warheads at of all levels of readiness. This equates to a total arsenal power of approximately 5,500 EMt (equivalent megatonnage).

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html

The Hiroshima bomb was 13 kilotons, the Nagasaki bomb was 21 kilotons.

We can afford to reduce some of our nuclear weaponry.