Obama Weighing Deep Cuts In U.S. Nuclear Arsenal

[PorkChopSandwiches]

The Obama administration is considering deep cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including one option to slash deployed weapons by 80%, the Associated Press is reporting.

AP, citing "a former U.S. official and a congressional official," says the administration is debating at least three three options to bring the U.S. stockpile down to somewhere between 1,100 and 300. The current treaty allows 1,550.

When he came to office in 2009, President Obama pledged to try to eliminate nuclear weapons.

The Arms Control Association offers background and perspectives on "The Future of the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal and the Budget."

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:facepalm:

[Hal-9000]

I know how to get rid of the excess nukes....point them at Iran :face:

[JoeyB]

Umm, this is a good thing...and remember, every less missile 'in the wild' represents a huge savings budget wise.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Yes, I would like to reduce our arsenal, while sending a trillion to the middle east all while Iran is going unchecked developing their own nuclear weapon :tup:

[Godfather]

Will someone please explain the strategic advantage of having more than, say, 50-100 nukes? Assuming that each hidden location currently in use has enough to wipe any 2-3 country's major cities and bases off the map, I don't get how it's worth the money. 1550 Nukes seems like an expensive deterrent. We're shitting our pants over Iran potentially having 4 :P .

[KevinD]

well, you have to take into account the "size" of the Nukes. Not all of them are of the "Level and Entire city" category. I'm not condoning it, but say you wanted to take out a hardened site, and minimize the damage surrounding as well as fallout. Then there's the so called "backpack" bombs.. etc.

I agree with Porkster. This is idiotic at this time.

[Godfather]

What if the stockpile was reduced in a thrifty way.... set those fuckers off over N Korea and Iran

Come on people, compromise with me :lol:

[JoeyB]

Will someone please explain the strategic advantage of having more than, say, 50-100 nukes? Assuming that each hidden location currently in use has enough to wipe any 2-3 country's major cities and bases off the map, I don't get how it's worth the money. 1550 Nukes seems like an expensive deterrent. We're shitting our pants over Iran potentially having 4 :P .


What if the stockpile was reduced in a thrifty way.... set those fuckers off over N Korea and Iran

Come on people, compromise with me :lol:

I already said the reduction was a great idea! I've been rallying for an end to nuclear weapons for a long time. Reductions are a good thing. Large stockpiles basically do nothing but provide a false sense of security to paranoid, frightened people. Say we 'only' had 1100 nukes. You set 1100 nukes off and you've basically fucked the planet. So, who would really set that many off anyway? Factoring in strategic deployment and response time, you still only need so many out there (as I said before) 'in the wild'.