Tag: nuclear arsenal
While nuclear utopians believe that if the U.S. reduces its nuclear arsenal other countries will follow suit, the reality is that not only have other states not done so, other nuclear powers have emerged, including India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
They falsely claim that it’s time to cut America’s nuclear arsenal even further, that the US nuclear arsenal is “excess”, and that the US should rely on “diplomacy, economic sanctions, and conventional deterrence” instead!
Addressing the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean nuclear threat must be America’s highest defense priority and merits any investment necessary.
Although China has a much larger nuclear arsenal than the DOD and arms control advocates are prepared to admit, Russia remains the principal nuclear and geopolitical adversary of the US.
Now for the first time, according to the latest New START data exchange, Russia actually has more actively deployed nuclear warheads than the U.S.
Both Russia and China are rapidly growing, not cutting, their atomic arsenal. In these circumstances, it would be utterly suicidal for the US to cut – or neglect to modernize – its own nuclear deterrent. It would be an invitation of a nuclear first strike by Russia or China.
A small nuclear arsenal would not be survivable – it would be easy for an enemy to destroy in a first strike. The smaller it is, the less survivable and easier to destroy in a first strike it is.
It was therefore not surprising (even though not pleasant, either) to see both of these rabid anti-nuclear activists to write new garbage screeds calling for deep, unilateral cuts in the US nuclear arsenal and the fleet of its delivery systems – ostensibly to save money.
They have been caught lying about nuclear modernization costs many times before – by the Washington Post’s Fact Checker Glenn Kessler, for example. When, last year, they falsely claimed a $700 bn per decade nuclear modernization cost, the WaPo’s Fact Checker gave them two Pinnochios , and they responded by saying “whether we are spending $500 billion or $700 billion on nuclear weapons in the next decade — the number is still too high.”