Replies

This might no be as bad as every thinks. From my understanding we have something like 2,800 nukes in our arsenal. We could eliminate quite a few of these and still have enough to blow up the world a few dozen times.

If done properly (which it probably won't be) we could save on the cost of maintaining and storing these weapons. Normally this would mean the savings is passed on to the tax payer but most liking the cost saving will go to something like ACORN.

This might no be as bad as every thinks. From my understanding we have something like 2,800 nukes in our arsenal. We could eliminate quite a few of these and still have enough to blow up the world a few dozen times.

Not enough.

Needs more cowbell.

Oh sure, all we need is 100, or maybe just 3 or 4, right? Assuming they survive a first strike, or are not rendered obsolescent by advances in defense shield, target hardening, etc on the other side (they are working frenetically, we not so much) - and assuming those aging weapons we have, function as intended... reliability is never 100@ and I believe by treaty, we have hamstrung ourselves on testing, even running simulations, to assure their reliability - just to show “good will”

Sometimes you can “have” too much of a good/bad thing. having a lot less retaliatory weapons to throw back if attacked by national level mass destructive WMD (such as bios) may “just” embolden an already insane enemy into risky decisions based on thinking his losses to our diminished nucs (3-4 cities and half of his population or military instead of 100 of his cities and 75% of his population or military) become more tolerable - ya think?

Besides, when and where have obama and his radical fringe loon lefties been “right” about any of their theories and assumptions on any aspect of American life? You think the economy is running so well that now you want to turn over strategic survival assumptions and planning for the next two decades or more, to a Andy Stern/Van Jones/Kevin Jennings administration?