U.S. weighing steep nuclear arms cuts

I strongly agree with Republicans: it's an OUTRAGE that Obams is working with his communist pals to weaken America to the point where we can only destroy the world 180 times.

Is he really American? Now I know why he bowed so much to foreign leaders - he wants to turn the U.S. Into Europe!

We need MORE defense spending and we need it now!

What is he smoking?

This can best be summed up in one word... Idiotic.

Lets put this in perspective shall we? When it comes down to it, the Federal Government has only 1 responsibility. That is defense. Everything else, from social security, to the nanny state food police, is extra. And according to Obamas latest budget, he wants to massively cut defense spending, while maintaining the increase and growth of government in almost all entitlement areas. In other words, his goal and vision for the US is to turn it into nothing more then another European style welfare state.

So, getting back to the primary role of the Federal Government, no other weapon serves as a greater deterrent for less cost than nuclear weapons. IE It costs less to build and maintain these systems, then it does to fund a whole heck of a lot of other things. So, where is the sense of rendering the US defenseless? Of drawing down the US arsenal so that if we are attacked, we would no longer be able to respond? If you cut sufficiently, as Obama seems determined to do, then the 'triad' they talk about above, will be undercut, and rendered too weak to be effective. At which point, we should all start bowing to China.

I think we should give one weapon to each and every country in the world. Not one would use them.

Americans baffle me. They spend more on "defense" than most other countries combined and have one of the worst healthcare services in the 1st world, actually worse than some countries NOT in the 1st world and yet they complain about America turning into a "European style welfare state" where EVERYONE has access to healthcare. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at them and considers the US to be one of the most uncaring and aggressive countries in the world.

Yeah, Molenir.... they need enough weapons to destroy the world 1000 times over. Reducing the nuclear forces to the point where they can only destroy the world 100 times over is ridiculous!!

"As of Sept 1 the United States had 1,790 warheads"

Holy crap! Those could do a lot of damage.

"Why would America even need more than 300 atomic bombs"

300? How about just 30? 30 could do a lot of damage.

Why would America even need more than 300 atomic bombs, more powerful than what was dropped on Japan?

They want to have one for each country in the world.

Serrano: "300? How about just 30? 30 could do a lot of damage."

Well, I agree with you that 30 is better than the current level, but the ideal would be ZERO. Of course, before that can be accomplished other nations need to make equal efforts -- then of course you run into problems with certain nations selling the decommissioned weapons to 'rogue' nations, and those rogue nations in general. No reason why they can't be cut back by 80%, though, and it would be a refreshing change to see the US leading in such a mission instead of always rushing to war or pushing arms races.

"As of Sept 1 the United States had 1,790 warheads"

How many MIRV? How many missles does this equate to? If a country decides to attack the US, do you think they could intercept some or all of these retaliatory strikes? And how many of them would be destroyed in that first strike? Do I anticipate it happening? No, not really. No one is stupid enough to pull the trigger on a nuclear war. But part of the reason for that is the MAD doctrine. And what Obama is suggesting is throwing that away, while allowing others enough to destroy the US several times over. That does not make me sleep any safer at night.

That does not make me sleep any safer at night.

Tell me this. WHat is the difference between being once dead and ten times dead?

Maintenance, security and crew to man that many warheads is costly. If they get that thing they had in the sky a few months ago working, there really is no need for nuclear overkill.

Most wars are going to be local conflagrations with conventional weaponry. To counter such emergent phenomena, the US needs to counter with smart-neutralizing asymmetric technologuies. Drones, mechanized soldiers, miniaturized aircraft, etc. The days of crude bombs and weaponry by civilized nations is drawing to a close, save for rogue states --those are less predictable and don't operate with normal logic. Strongmen are apt to lash out, despite that being a suicidal choice.

Let's hope they can get the Indias, Chinas, Russias and the (western) Europeans (all of which have greater then 300 warheads) to follow suit and cut their stockpiles in kind.

Knowing the US, they must weigh heavily on the issue!! (Sorry, couldn't help myself ;).)

I can't say I know a lot about the configuration, but I've read the Trident II on an Ohio class sub has up to 12 warheads, and the sub itself can carry 24 missiles, so that would be a total of 288 warheads on one submarine, assuming it was configured as such. It's not always a "how many times do you need to blow up the world" situation, it's usually a "how many different delivery vehicles do you feel comfortable with". Throw in land based missiles and bombers and in order to have multiple safeguards there will be a minimum number of required vehicles. You don't want to be in a situation where sinking a few subs wipes out half of the US's nuclear deterrent.

Tell me this. WHat is the difference between being once dead and ten times dead?

Then lets turn this around. If the US has enough nukes to kill you 10 times over, then what does it matter if they have a few more? Why worry about it? Unless you are talking wholesale elimination, then theres no point in even discussing it.

As a person form a country bombed by the USA, I want my voice heard, the USa should demilitarize now!