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.
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.
One advantage to having a larger number is that even if a traitor gives an enemy the means to conduct an effective surprise attack on 90% of our strike capability, we'd still have enough left to strike back with that our enemies would be unwilling to take such a chance. If we reduce our strength too much, or eliminate too much of its diversity, an enemy might realistically hope to knock us out completely before we could respond. Having an enemy attempt such a thing would be disastrous, regardless of whether it was successful.