Question about nuclear arms

I don't want to comment either way about the policy, but I wanted to know what the random populace of OT Forumers thought about this. I also thought it might be a good avenue to explain some not-so-widely-known facts about nuclear weapons. Though I guess that if this is the first time you've heard abut this, this could fall into the category Thucydides wrote about:

The administration has publicized that they would like to unilaterally reduce nuclear warhead count below New START Treaty limits. The President has spoken to other foreign powers and the UN about stopping proliferation and banning tests.

On another note...
DOD, DOE, and the National Nuclear Weapons council all concur that our nuclear weapons base is getting older, and it's getting close to time to start replacing systems, not components. This is not a cheap undertaking, though. We haven't had a large-scale nuclear design program since the end of the Cold War, and now it's starting to catch up with us. Of the Strategic Triad of Bombers, ICBMs and Submarines:
-the B-1s have been retired from being nuclear carriers, B-2s capped at 20 (they cost over 1B each) and B-52s (a 50-y/o program!) are down ~30% to less than 70 total.
-The Minuteman III missile system is 40 years old, and the AF needs money to keep it going until (projected) 2030
-The Ohio-class submarines will begin retiring at the end of the 2020's, and the SSBN(X) program has just passed Milestone A, allowing the Navy to continue efforts to design for a 2019 build start and 2027 or so launch. But these have been quoted as anywhere from 4.9B to 12B per copy (in testimony, Navy's said they'll try to keep it in the 4-5B range) and you need around 10-15 of them to do the required national strategic mission.

Thoughts about the weapons, our policies, worldwide posture, etc?

 

I'd prefer to see the bare minimum needed as a deterrent, but we don't need enough to wipe out the population several times over.

The right number seems in the dozens. If we need to keep up to date via maintenance or whole new systems replacing the old, I'm ok with it.

 

the new START required counting by platform. For instance, if we keep a B-52 around, it counts as a weapon, even if you never stick a weapon on it...just because it COULD. Same for the Ohios. They're required to remove permanently the capability of launching from a bunch of their tubes, just b/c if it COULD hold a missile with a lot of MIRVs on it, it's counted as such, whether we have them loaded to the gills or not.

As far as the "dozens" go...there are 5 countries in the world confirmed with more than 10 dozen warheads and a couple of more on the way. Deterrence only really works if the other side thinks they can't get away with it...and there are a bunch of "other sides".

 

Seems like you don't need to be able to nuke every city in a country that might attack us.

Seems more important to have the ability to retaliate, though. So arming subs, planes, mobile launchers, hardened silos, etc. Is called for.

 

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2007/February 2007/0207force.pdf
Their numbers are a bit off, but the premise is the same.

 

You can't hug a child with old broken down nuclear arms!

-SlyPokerDog

 

Your warheads don't have to hit foreheads, either.