I would ask the same question. What have you been smoking.
First, if you read about some of the nutcases who were admirals and generals in the Pentagon in the 50's and 60's, it is probably only because the Soviets had a stockpile that we did not end up in a nuclear war.
More significantly, however, I am trying to get you to think sensibly and logically about nuclear weapons. One of the ways to think about what it would take to deter someone else is to imagine what it would take to deter us, which means asking such questions and what price would be too high for us to consider some expedition against some other country in the world. The answer is that it does not take very many.
Now that you know that we could be deterred with a dozen thermonuclear warheads on ICBMs, you can think sensibly about sensible numbers and not imagine that our defense requires bizarre numbers like 28,395 carefully targeted systems.
But I did not realize I was dealing with an idiot who cannot think beyond the end of his ah er nose.
Document this claim, if you can. Show me evidence of admirals and/or generals who would have launched nuclear weapons on their own without "deterrence" from the USSR.
Your claim is absurd.
I believe you've mistaken FR for a hippie commune.
More significantly, however, I am trying to get you to think sensibly and logically about nuclear weapons. One of the ways to think about what it would take to deter someone else is to imagine what it would take to deter us, which means asking such questions and what price would be too high for us to consider some expedition against some other country in the world. The answer is that it does not take very many.
That's all well and good, but beside the point. The ones who need the deterrence are those who are likely aggressors and likely to start a war.
Can you point out ANY war at ANY time which was started by unprovoked action from the USA? EVER?
You need to figure out whose side you're on, bub.
America's still the Good Guys.