I agree with some of your points but I also disagree with some of them. First, when the cost overruns of developing and manufacturing new nuclear weapons reaches a certain point or if the conditions at the facilities where the weapons are produced are unsafe for the workers or the rest of the country I would be in favor of canceling and defunding the given system.
However, I do support the continuing modernization and expansion of our nuclear arsenal in order to deter our adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran from acting aggressively. Also, we need to have powerful enough nuclear capabilities to pierce Russian and Chinese missile defenses should the unthinkable happen.
Even if the START II Treaty with Russia is renewed (I hope that it is) it would not affect China, so they would be able to develop and deploy as many nuclear weapons as they fit. This may put us at a military disadvantage if something is not worked out with them. Furthermore, Putin refuses to commit to expanding START II, so what other choice does that give us but to develop and produce new nuclear weapons? I saw on 60 Minutes on Sunday night that he is likely responsible for causing the Havana Syndrome, so who knows what nuclear capabilities Russia harbors at this time?
1) After 75 years we've proven we have no clue how to get rid of these weapons.
2) There's no credible reason to believe we can keep these weapons around forever and never use them. There is instead thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.
3) If the above are true, does it really matter how much we spend on nuclear weapons?
===========
Argument #2:
Are nuclear weapons really the problem?
If you will, imagine that aliens were to adduct all the nuclear weapons, and all the nuclear material on Earth too. Here's what would happen next. Power tripping men would immediately turn their attention to other means of projecting mass destruction, which an accelerating knowledge explosion will happily hand them. Before you know it, we're right back where we are now.
What if the problem is actually not nuclear weapons, but instead violent men, a small fraction of humanity which is responsible for the overwhelming vast majority of horror and threat?
If we're going to take on seemingly impossible challenges, why not aim our efforts at the source of the problem instead of a symptom of the problem?
===========
Argument #3:
Those we look to for solutions, nuclear weapons experts and activists, have lost their way. They keep repeating what they've been doing for 75 years, which has never worked. And they can't admit that everything they've said and done for 75 years has been a failure, because then they would no longer be seen as authorities on the subject.
But it's only when we admit that everything we've already said and done has failed that there will be an opportunity for new ideas that would at least have some small chance of being successful.
It's this failure of intellectual honesty, courage and imagination that concerns me more than nuclear weapons budgets.
This is some incredibly weak analysis. No mention of how nuclear systems were largely ignored for the previous 25+ years. Our most modern bomber last rolled off the line a quarter of a century ago, the newest Ohio class submarine is a couple of years older than that, and our land based Minuteman III’s are pushing 50.
Also no mention of China’s rapid buildup o its strategic nuclear force.
Joe- Remember Dr. Lawton's 'Unilateral Disarmament" debate topic? I know it's a college student's debate but what if? What if we decided to unilaterally disarm? What would happen?
Better yet, what would happen if we redirected that nearly $1 trillion to other programs? Or simply didn't spend it at all? There would be a lot of unemployed lobbyists but maybe that wouldn't be so bad.
Dear Joe,
I agree with some of your points but I also disagree with some of them. First, when the cost overruns of developing and manufacturing new nuclear weapons reaches a certain point or if the conditions at the facilities where the weapons are produced are unsafe for the workers or the rest of the country I would be in favor of canceling and defunding the given system.
However, I do support the continuing modernization and expansion of our nuclear arsenal in order to deter our adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran from acting aggressively. Also, we need to have powerful enough nuclear capabilities to pierce Russian and Chinese missile defenses should the unthinkable happen.
Even if the START II Treaty with Russia is renewed (I hope that it is) it would not affect China, so they would be able to develop and deploy as many nuclear weapons as they fit. This may put us at a military disadvantage if something is not worked out with them. Furthermore, Putin refuses to commit to expanding START II, so what other choice does that give us but to develop and produce new nuclear weapons? I saw on 60 Minutes on Sunday night that he is likely responsible for causing the Havana Syndrome, so who knows what nuclear capabilities Russia harbors at this time?
Sincerely,
David Hurwitz
Chicago, IL
Dear Joe,
Maybe we could zoom out a bit?
===========
Argument #1:
1) After 75 years we've proven we have no clue how to get rid of these weapons.
2) There's no credible reason to believe we can keep these weapons around forever and never use them. There is instead thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.
3) If the above are true, does it really matter how much we spend on nuclear weapons?
===========
Argument #2:
Are nuclear weapons really the problem?
If you will, imagine that aliens were to adduct all the nuclear weapons, and all the nuclear material on Earth too. Here's what would happen next. Power tripping men would immediately turn their attention to other means of projecting mass destruction, which an accelerating knowledge explosion will happily hand them. Before you know it, we're right back where we are now.
What if the problem is actually not nuclear weapons, but instead violent men, a small fraction of humanity which is responsible for the overwhelming vast majority of horror and threat?
If we're going to take on seemingly impossible challenges, why not aim our efforts at the source of the problem instead of a symptom of the problem?
===========
Argument #3:
Those we look to for solutions, nuclear weapons experts and activists, have lost their way. They keep repeating what they've been doing for 75 years, which has never worked. And they can't admit that everything they've said and done for 75 years has been a failure, because then they would no longer be seen as authorities on the subject.
But it's only when we admit that everything we've already said and done has failed that there will be an opportunity for new ideas that would at least have some small chance of being successful.
It's this failure of intellectual honesty, courage and imagination that concerns me more than nuclear weapons budgets.
This is some incredibly weak analysis. No mention of how nuclear systems were largely ignored for the previous 25+ years. Our most modern bomber last rolled off the line a quarter of a century ago, the newest Ohio class submarine is a couple of years older than that, and our land based Minuteman III’s are pushing 50.
Also no mention of China’s rapid buildup o its strategic nuclear force.
Joe- Remember Dr. Lawton's 'Unilateral Disarmament" debate topic? I know it's a college student's debate but what if? What if we decided to unilaterally disarm? What would happen?
Better yet, what would happen if we redirected that nearly $1 trillion to other programs? Or simply didn't spend it at all? There would be a lot of unemployed lobbyists but maybe that wouldn't be so bad.
Tom