Skip to content


Cutting the U.S. nuclear arsenal can help cut the deficit via The Washington Post

[...]

So why do we need 1,000 or more warheads? Why have three types of delivery systems — the triad of subs, bombers and land-based missiles — that all need to be modernized? Originally, the triad was meant to deter a first strike by the Soviets — an attack that we now know they never contemplated and never could have executed.

Cold War thinking is the only justification for the United States having more than McNamara’s preferred 500 weapons. They are terror weapons, used more for political and diplomatic prestige than for war.

If we cut the numbers of nukes, we could reduce the triad to a duo — bombers and sub-launched delivery systems — and eliminate land-based ICBMs.

Continue reading at Cutting the U.S. nuclear arsenal can help cut the deficit

Posted in *English.

Tagged with , , , .


One Response

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. yukimiyamotodepaul says

    I still don’t see why 500 nuclear weapons, or any, can be justifiable, but have no objection in reducing them.



Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.