[silverleaf]

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?

[A Texan]

I never said that we need just 100 nukes. If we currently have 2,800 we could cut those numbers in half and still have plenty to blow up the earth and the moon. Let the older/outdated nukes be the ones that are dismantled.

Hey I am all for blowing $hit up, and I don't want to sacrifice national security or the safety of the citizenry but 2,800 nukes is a little bit of overkill. The cost alone to secure, maintain and staff these weapons has (hopefully) got to be pretty substantial. I believe we can cut cost without sacrificing our ability to blow up a whole bunch of crap.