I don’t know anything about the cost, but agreed with his answer to the effect of why are we deleting our warheads when others are not (paraphrasing). I think he then said something about negotiation (but could be wrong on that). Russia, Iran (TBD but if they supposedly don’t have them now, they will in the not too distant future), NK, Pakistan, India and any others that have nuclear; and, after the Iran deal others in the ME want them. Why should we deplete our nuclear arsenal if others are building theirs up and/or want to acquire them. I don’t know (and nothing against you, Cboldt) I’m just trying to understand as it doesn’t make sense to me (though I admit I don’t know a lot about it). Strength through military and IMHO that includes nuclear - which is something we hopefully never have to use and no other country uses either.
I agree with all that. Was just looking at historical levels of the warhead stockpile. Holy Cow! We're at a tenth of the peak! At any rate, at some level, the degree of deterrence is "enough." Assuming I can get ammo next week, an armory with 5,000 rounds, today, is probably enough. I don't need 50,000.
I have no idea how out warhead stockpile stacks up as a strategic deterrent. It may be too small, just right, or too big. If it's too big, it makes sense to cut back there, and spend elsewhere.
ME deal is in BO head, its balancing act. Sunni (Pakistan) had Nuclear bomb, lets give it Shia (Iran) also. Basically, stick it to Sunnis.
Gaddafi, and Saudi financed Paki Nuclear bomb.