An illustration of the size of our nuclear arsenal.

1. Just a thought…

   A concerted effort across sub-saharan Africa with $20 Bn in one year could eliminate malaria there, which currently kills over ONE MILLION CHILDREN every year.

   Imagine you wake up and your kid is sick. You have to walk 20 miles to the clinic carrying your child. By the time you get there, your beloved is in a coma, but the clinic has no medicine. You watch hopelessly as your child dies.

   That happened 3000 times today, and will happen every day until America realizes that we can be the beacon of hope that we’ve spent the last six year pretending to be.

2. http://www.malarianomore.com

3. That is an effective illustration.

4. You make a compelling visualization, but I have to take umbrage with the statement that six nuclear weapons would kill every last person Russia. The following analysis of all out war paints a picture not often heard. Notable differences are that casualties are around 1/4 to 1/3 of the total sum and that after about 40 years life goes on pretty much as before except that the unaligned nations have an advantage.

   All that aside, I agree emphatically that there is no moral justification for maintaining such an arsenal.

   I can’t help but mention this, but if you want to witness the most harrowing film depiction of nuclear war, you could no less worse than to watch threads. It should be required watching for anyone who thinks these weapons preserve the peace.

5. Yeah, but they’re getting stale, so we need to make new ones.

   Or something.

   >__>

6. I recommend the movie Threads as well.

   Note that cutting the arsenal in half won’t likely cut the maintenance cost in half owing to all the fixed costs involved in such an endeavor; still, your point is well-made.

   (Weird now to think that in the 1980s I considered being in the same room/compartment as nuclear weapons a routine part of my job…)

7. I believe the rationale for maintaining such a large arsenal is (was?) that many of them may be destroyed in a surprise attack, so we best make sure to have enough. In addition, there was the whole dick-measuring deal with the Soviets that was somehow related to deterrence. Clearly, whatever rationale once might have existed no longer does. Five thousand, hell maybe even only 2,500, seems like plenty.

   BTW, Josh, we could also eliminate/drastically reduce malaria in Africa by reintroducing DDT which I believe the UN bans using as a part of aid programs.

8. By the end of the Cold War, over 50% of the immediately deliverable payload in the U.S. nuclear arsenal was on patrol aboard submarines, effectively immune from Soviet first strike. I don’t know what the numbers are these days, but with the stand-down of one leg of the nuclear triad (SAC’s bombers), it’s probably an even higher percentage.

   BTW: I didn’t count the dots above. Were you counting delivery vehicles or deliverable warheads (i.e. MIRVs)?

9. Waldo,

   You just made art, thats awesome!

   Judge,

   “The EPA, in 1987 , classified DDT as class B2, a probable human carcinogen based on “Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE.”

   “A study of malaria workers who handled DDT occupationally found an elevated risk of cancers of the liver and biliary tract”

   But more importantly

   “Silent Spring undoubtedly influenced the U.S. ban on DDT in 1972, the reduced usage of DDT in malaria eradication began the decade before because of the emergence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes. Indeed, Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed that eradication programs had to be wary of relying on DDT for too long as “resistance has appeared [after] six or seven years”

   And

   In some areas DDT has lost much of its effectiveness, especially in areas such as India where outdoor transmission is the predominant form. According to one article by V.P. Sharma, “The declining effectiveness of DDT is a result of several factors which frequently operate in tandem. The first and the most important factor is vector resistance to DDT. All populations of the main vector, An. culicifacies have become resistant to DDT.” In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, “the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission.”

   I am not saying that the benefits do not out way the very real costs in SOME areas; but this is not the club, to use against environmentalists, that some reactionary conservatives and libertarians wish it were . . .

   Not to mention that WHO is funding some DDT projects to fight malaria, but it is also warning that Global Warming is already spreading malaria into areas where its never been.

10. I didn’t know any of that, and, you’re right, I was attempting to use it as a cudgel. I appreciate you allowing that the benefits of DDT use may in SOME cases outweigh its costs.

    The maddening thing for me is the environmental/transnational progressives’ insistence that only billions more in aid from the G-7 to developing nations can stem the tide of malaria or some other malady. When presented with a cheaper alternative such as DDT, they howl at its side effects and ignore its very real benefits. And if the G-7 ever did cough up the cash they want, who exactly would administer it I wonder? Why it would be largely the same outfits who insist a DDT regime would provoke a holocaust.

    It’s analagous to the global warming industry’s insistence that we have to cut emissions from cars, power plants and the like. But when proponents of nuclear power attempt to be heard it’s often a non-starter for the environmental crowd. Like with DDT, I understand there are different problems associated with nuclear power, but the activists’ refusal to compromise and insistence that things must be done their way has made me pretty cynical about them. I’d also note it hasn’t been a great strategy for achieving the things they say they want.

11. The cynic in me is saying that it wasn’t deterrence or a Napoleon complex or anything like that behind out arsenal. It would have taken a boatload of money to build that arsenal, and clearly, $20B to maintain the arsenal is not chump change. Government contracts, anyone?

12. Judge Smails is 100% right about DDT. There is no excuse for not using it in places where malaria is a problem. You don’t need to use DDT forever. We used it in the US for some years and then stopped with the ecological issues started to snowball. Meanwhile, the years in which we did use it wiped out populations of mosquitoes that carried diseases which we no longer have to think about. The once ubiquitous annoyance of bedbugs is completely alien to most Americans, thanks to their almost total eradication through the use of DDT.

    I’ll accept some thin egg shells among birds of prey for a few years if it means saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. Yes, the choice really is that stark.

    With regard to our nuclear arsenal, we do need more than just a handful of nukes in order to maintain an effective deterrent strategy. The strategy depends on other nuclear powers knowing that we have the ability to strike back anywhere in the world even in the event that we have been taken by surprise by an enemy with sophisticated intelligence. Maybe the locations of our ICBM missile silos are discovered and they get hit in a first strike. So you need back-ups elsewhere.

    You need nuclear subs that constantly move around under the ocean where no enemy could find them. Even if every land-based launch site was disabled, an American sub under the ocean on the other side of the world can still respond. The enemy may be able to knock out a ballistic missile when they have early detection of a missile coming from 10,000 miles away. So the sub allows you to launch from a closer point where there will be less opportunity for the enemy to take defensive action.

    Then you have similar roles for long-range bombers equipped with nuclear missiles and bombs. If an actual war is starting, then maybe some of your B52s are going to get shot down by enemy fighters before they even arrive. So you need to send out more than you will actually need on target. Maybe a dozen instead of one. But then where do you position those B52s for rapid response? You need some stationed where they can reach North Korea quickly (Guam). Others where they can reach key targets in Russia. Then you’d better keep a bunch of them well within the US (Ellsworth AFB) in order to keep some of your strategic assets well away from where a Pearl Harbor type attack could completely destroy your strategic bombing capabilities.

    This is the stuff of a serious strategy of nuclear deterrent. You have to have some warheads hidden, others mobilized, some globally positioned for fast action and some held back in reserve.

    Would it be better if the world did not have a single nuclear weapon? Absolutely. But they are a reality and we can’t make the bad guys give them up. So long as the bad guys have them, we need a effective deterrent to prevent them from using them against us and that deterrent has to involve us having lots and lots of nukes of our own. The idea isn’t to launch every single one of these hundreds of weapons at a target. It’s to make sure that no matter what the scenario is or how the enemy gets the jump on us, we are able to put one or several bombs right where they need to go. And the enemy needs to know for sure that we can do this so that we never actually have to do it.

    One might as well ask why 2 police officers responding to a call need to carry 3 17 round magazines each for their weapons, along with a backup weapon for each of them such as a 5 shot revolver on an ankle holster. That’s 112 rounds of ammunition they are carrying when they knock on the door. Is there any scenario where the police would possibly need to kill 112 people at once? No. But that is what it takes to be really prepared to put the one bullet where it needs to go no matter how badly the fight unfolds.

13. Dan,

    Complaining about the cost of maintaining this arsenal does not make sense. We are the world’s one and only superpower mostly because of our nuclear capability.

    [takes deep breath]

    The fact is that we can instantly defend anyone who wishes to be our ally and we can instantly destroy anyone who wishes to be our enemy. This is why we have a permanent seat on the UN security council. Does anyone think that it is a coincidence that all 5 of the permanent members of the Security Council are nuclear powers? Of those, where did France and Britain get their nuclear weapons and know-how? That’s right, from the US. The remaining members, Russia and China, being historically aligned against us.

    This is why we have the trade agreements that we do. This is why we have the economy and the standard of living that we enjoy. Like it or not, prosperity is the fruit of international military muscle.

    Britain and France became the great powers that they did with their high standards of living and their towering cultural accomplishments because they had centuries of relatively booming economies resulting from their ability to guarantee favorable trade through military dominance. Britain by way of sea and France by way of land on the European continent. It is not a coincidence that Germany’s industrial revolution took place simultaneously with their emergence as an aspiring superpower with a Navy equal even to that of Britain. It is no fluke that the economic fortunes of the Dutch mirrored first their rise in military might and later the successes of their alignments with more powerful states. Likewise, an examination of Spanish history will reveal a rapid decline in economic activity along with their failure to keep pace with innovations in military technology, organization and tactics.

    Can anyone point to a single really economically successful country that is not only militarily weak but also does not enjoy the protection of the US or an aspiring super power?

    My point is that complaints about our nuclear capability on the basis of economics do not make sense. We are not outside of history. We are subject to the same basic economic forces that the Dutch, Spanish, French, English and Germans were over the last 600 years or so. This strategic military hardware pays for it’s self many, many times over.

14. Hmm… if the direction of this argument doesn’t prove some greater cosmic point then I don’t know what does.

    Let’s see, the same guys that generally argue on blogs that sprawl is good, are now arguing that we should continue to maintain a overly sufficient and dangerous nuclear stockpile. Oh, and while we’re at it, just for giggles let’s start using DDT again… Somehow that fits.

    My perspective on this is the same as my opinion on Bamboo. You see, many people argue that it’s okay for them to grow this plant because they keep it trimmed back and in control. Unfortunately, it’s certain that either they won’t live forever or someone else will inheret the property who doesn’t maintain the ever expanding Bamboo grove… that then proceeds to take over the neighborhood. As the fall of the Soviet Union showed, this is also the great risk of a large nuclear arsenal. Even in a democracy, we’ve no idea who the next president will be. For that matter, we don’t even know how long our democracy will last (and call me unpatriotic, but the most basic knowledge of history indicates that it probably won’t). After that, who inherets all these warheads? ANYONE.

15. Lonnie,

    You must have mistaken me for someone else. I hate sprawl and I oppose new, large home developments in my own county. As a conservationist, I’m right there with you on bamboo as well as English ivy and other invasive, non-native plants. I’m a Democrat who voted for Al Gore, John Kerry, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine and Jim Webb.

16. Lonnie,

    One more thing – what are you talking about with that reference to history and democracy? England’s parliamentary democracy has lasted since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 and political freedom in the UK has only expanded since that time.

    Eventually the sun will go supernova and swallow the Earth whole. Allowing this sort of thing to paralyze one’s government’s policy doesn’t make a lot of sense. By your logic, we might as well run up a trillion dollars of defecit every year since some day the US government might collapse and we won’t have to pay the bills. Lets get rid of all taxes! Nobody go to work anymore! The end of the world is coming!

    Also, I am unaware of any nuclear warheads that fell into other hands following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The nukes always remained in Russian hands. The Russian state and government was never dissolved. Only Russia’s political control of other states that had their own, separate state governments. Russia kept control of it’s entire stockpile of weapons and continues to do so to this day. Do you know something that I don’t?

17. Jack,

    Regarding Democracy, the Magna Carta hardly made England a true Democracy. It was still a functional Monarchy for several hundred years afterwards. In addition, England might not have fallen but the British Empire sure did. What if it had had nuclear weapons floating around in each of the colonies when it fell?

    Don’t get me wrong here, I hope our Democracy fares better than Athens, or Rome’s Republic… but in the scope of time, 1788 really wasn’t very long ago, and so far we’ve got a president who is using his war time powers in much the way Julius Caesar did when he refused to return the imperium to the Senate. It would be extremely arrogant of us to assume that our Democracy was somehow “safe” when many other Democracies and governments have fallen throughout history. For that matter, we’re currently holding people indefinitely without any promise of a trial by their peers, and listening in on citizens without any oversight. The fact that people aren’t demanding impeachment for this, really doesn’t speak well for the future of our Democracy.

    Besides, it doesn’t take a government to completely fall to lose track of its weapons. Once you have that many, it takes alot of resources to make sure that not only the weapons are accounted for, but also the raw materials used to make them. As for the Soviet Union, while the actual weapons make be accounted for, the same is not true of radioactive materials, the scientists, and all the parts and pieces needed to make them. A disturbing amount of this stuff is unaccounted for, which makes one wonder how much of it ended up in the hands of countries like Pakastan, Iran, and North Korea. For that matter our government may not have fallen (yet) but somehow Los Alamos already does a pretty good job of losing things.

    Also, sorry if I lumped you in with the sprawl folks. I suppose I was really speaking more to Judge Smails.

18. Jack,

    The economic argument seems to make sense, even in the light of what you’re saying, if we truly have more warheads than we need in order to maintain military dominance. I do think that counting up how many nukes it would take to wipe out Russia or whatever, and comparing it to how many we have is overly simplistic, given the requirements on placement, and obvious redundancy needs in the event that we weren’t the first to strike. However, if we have enough weapons to ensure at least mutually assured destruction in the worst-case scenario, then the additional warheads are just liabilities, and do not add to our economic power.

    Also, when it comes to weapons that could wipe out all of humanity, we really should be planning for the LONG term, and that includes the realization that there’s no good reason to believe that the US will be around forever. Your response takes this argument to mean that we should assume in daily life that the US won’t be here tomorrow, but the mere admission that something may go wrong down the road is quite different. I plan my finances so that I’ll still be able to eat in the case of another depression, but that doesn’t mean that I’ve converted all my finances to gold. I’m absolutely sure you can see the difference between planning for the worst and assuming the worst.

19. And if anyone is up for even more fun after Threads, be sure to check out When the Wind Blows.

    ~

    I wonder if it’s so easy for so many people to advocate for and talk about nuclear weapons because they seem so unreal. More of a theoretical exercise than anything that would ever occur, perhaps.

20. Also well worth seeing is The Atomic Cafe: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083590/

21. However, if we have enough weapons to ensure at least mutually assured destruction in the worst-case scenario, then the additional warheads are just liabilities, and do not add to our economic power.

    That’s the crux of it right there. If it takes, say, 60 nuclear weapons to wipe out the world, then let’s have, say, 10x that. That’s still just 6% of our current arsenal.

    Were you counting delivery vehicles or deliverable warheads (i.e. MIRVs)?

    The numbers are from Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, which does not explain to which they’re referring. They present it contexts like this Marketplace interview, with explanation. I can only assume it would be deliverable warheads — counting delivery vehicles would strike as a pretty useless number.

    Here’s Ben Cohen’s demonstration of the size of our arsenal:

22. Judge,

    In case you didn’t notice, in your desire to lump everyone in nice neat little categories, there are mant environmentalist who are for Nuke plants, because of the dire threat of Global Warming.

    I think I disagree, though I am still on the fence

    Here are the problems: There’s never been a serious conversation about what the hell to do with all the waste . . . just go to France, where they pretty much get all their power from Nukes, to see the problems that it is causing. Everyone is always going to NIMB’s when it comes to Nuke Waste, do you blame them?

    Not to mention the security issues that the plants represent. Just like Michael Corleone says in the God Father 2, “if history has taught us anything, its that you can kill anyone.” Well the same applies for Nuke plants, no matter how well they are defended. Not to mention, how much is all that security going to add to my electric bill?

    Then there is the final problem with Nuke power, we are actually running out of the fuel for them, we have somewhere between 50-100 years of “cheap” uranium reserves at CURRENT consumption rates (what happens if we double or triple that?)

    Its the exact same problem with peak oil, still plenty of oil in the ground, it is just economically impossible to get to it.economicaly imposible to get to it.

23. You’ve certainly managed to identify lots of problems both with reintroducing DDT as a means of saving hundreds of thousands of lives currently lost to malaria and using nuclear power to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases. Well done. Now, what would YOU do?

    If your answer involves spending $20 bn from the US Treasury on mosquito nets and cajoling Americans to use less energy a la Jimmy Carter in a sweater then I’m afraid your solutions are simply politically and economically untenable.

    It’s better to compromise and achieve some degree of success than fail but remain ideologically pure.

24. First thing Judge, Nuclear Power Plants would only lessen our dependance on foreign oil if we all drove electric cars . . .

    Second Nukes are so expensive to build they can only be done by spending billions and billions of dollars from the US treasury. Why spend so much damn money on a technology that is going to run out of reasonable priced fuel in 50 years!?

    And third lets look at Carter’s legacy, and the legacy of government mandates in energy efficiency.

    Between 1975 and 2000, even as the American economy grew by nearly 50 percent, our energy intensity fell by 40 percent.

    Lets look at where some of these gains came from:

    In 1975 we passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, at the time the the average car got between 10-15 miles a gallon. By 1985 the average had increased to 25 mgp and despite 27 percent growth in our economy oil demand dropped by more than one-sixth.

    Now the Saudis didn’t like this so they flooded the market with cheap oil, and low and behold we froze CAFE.

    Where Carter gets credit is mandating efficiencies in air conditioners, refrigerators and stronger building codes. Modern refrigerators use only 1/4 of the energy that 1970 models used; this alone avoided the construction of 40 new power plants.

    There are still huge gains we could make in efficiencies:

    Power Plants in the US discard more energy in “waste” heat than is needed to run the entire Japanese economy.

    Less than a quarter of the energy used in the standard stove reaches the food.

    The city of LA requires a whole extra power plant to cool the city from the solar heat absorbed by traditional dark roofs and asphalt.

    Barely 15 percent of the energy in a gallon of gas ever reaches the wheels of a car.

    Just a 2.7 mpg gain in the fuel economy of our light-vehicle fleet could displace Persian Gulf imports entirely.

    And this isn’t even looking at the huge huge gains we could make by manufacturing autos out of light weight composite materials or making the bottoms of cars as aerodynamic as the tops.

    Ok my girlfriend needs me to help clean the house, so I gotta go, but you get my point.

25. A nice write up today about what a fantastic job the US Air Force did in keeping track of those six nuclear warheads that were, uh, accidentally moved across country.

26. Jon –

    Some great points in that last post, mostly related to entropy. Just a few notes:

    While increased production in oil from the Persian Gulf as part of it, the North Sea and Alaska fields came online at the same time, due to exploration during the 1973 oil embargo. There was so much oil hitting the market that the price of West Texas crude dropped as low as $10 a barrel [1]. So CAFE was less discarded over an intentional plot by Aramco or the Al-Saud family, but more so sheer supply and demand. Everyone got drunk on cheap oil, and corporations encouraged the laxing of standards since the pain of 1973 was a distant memory.

    Some things to add (that relate to other articles on Waldo’s site in relation to his home construction adventure):

    Outside of the actual burning of fossil fuels in automobiles, the throwaway society of America, encouraging a new car every three to five years, creates a massive junkyard. It’s a three ton chunk of steel and fiberglass. It doesn’t just disappear. It’s almost impossible to recycle. Toyotas typically reach 200k miles before the engine becomes pretty useless. Look how many “pre-owned” cars you can purchase that rarely have over $30k miles on them. I don’t have a url, but I recall a reference that we place 15 million *additional* cars on the road each year.

    And to your note about LA, 100% an issue:

    The amount of energy waste from buildings, namely single family homes, that do not take into account location and site must be staggering. Passive solar building design [2] and looking at the ways that houses were build pre-electrification to influence modern design [3] would help reduce the use of electricity derived from the burning of fossil fuels and instead utilize true solar energy. Since fossil fuels are basically trapped solar energy from millions of years ago courtesy of various forms of plant and animal life, it’s going straight to the source.

    “Mission” style architecture wasn’t just a fad. It was the result of local building materials and dealing with a near desert climate. These are actually very similar to mosques seen in Cordoba, Spain and North Africa. [4]

    [1] Kunstler, James Howard. The Long Emergency p.54
    [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design
    [3] http://www.phys.ufl.edu/%7Eliz/home.html and http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~liz/design.html
    [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_the_California_missions

27. John,

    Really great points, and yes a lot of non-OPEC oil came into production (cheap oil actually destroyed huge sectors of the Soviet economy and had as much of an effect of the fall of that particular empire as anything else . . . Anyway you actually saw OPEC’s share of world production drop from 70% to 30% . . . am I right about that? . . . I think I am, dont have time to look it up. Regadless OPEC’s share the market dropped, BUT world consuption did increase and 30% is still a huge chunk.

    And as I am sure you know, Ahmed Zaki Yamani once famously said “The stone age did not end for a want of rocks, and the oil age will not end for a want of oil.” Or something like that . . .

    In other words the Saudi’s are accutly aware of the danger’s that alternative energy and new effciances pose to the econmic future of their kingdom. And they are certainly aware of what starts to happen when the price of crude gets TOO high . . . they learned a very important lesson from their imbargo experance.

28. If anyone is interested I know how to use spell check:

    John,

    Really great points, and yes a lot of non-OPEC oil came into production (cheap oil actually destroyed huge sectors of the Soviet economy and had as much of an effect on the fall of that particular empire as anything else . . . Anyway you actually saw OPEC’s share of world production drop from 70% to 30% . . . am I right about that? . . . I think I am, dont have time to look it up. Regardless OPEC’s share the market dropped, BUT world consumption did increase and 30% is still a huge chunk.

    And as I am sure you know, Ahmed Zaki Yamani once famously said “The stone age did not end for a want of rocks, and the oil age will not end for a want of oil.” Or something like that . . .

    In other words the Saudi’s are acutely aware of the danger’s that alternative energy and new efficiencies pose to the economic future of their kingdom. And they are certainly aware of what starts to happen when the price of crude gets TOO high . . . they learned a very important lesson from their embargo experience.

29. I hear a False dilemma in the arguments regarding some of these issues. It isn’t DDT versus malaria and mosquito nets, and nor is it really global warming versus nuclear power. The gains that we’ve made in both energy and pest management yield far more solutions to both these problems than has been suggested.

    For example, the big thing we learned from DDT was that pesticides need to biodegrade so they don’t keep moving through the ecosystem. We now also have biological controls that can be very effective. Like other epidemics, the real issue is simply that first world nations would rather not help these countries come up with effective solutions. (After all, how many people die of malaria in Lousiana or Florida every year?)

    Likewise, as other people have pointed out, very small changes in the way we build homes, vehicles and other devices can result in a huge savings in energy. The fact that many things, like cars, were actually more efficient a decade ago indicate that it is completely possible to use less oil, we just aren’t doing it. When you look closer into the reasons, it’s clear that often the oil industry and other narrow finincial interests are using their weight to prevent more efficient technologies.

    Making it seem like its all about sweaters and mosquito nets is really just avoiding the actual issues. I’d also argue that the current conflict(s) in the Middle East demonstrate that national security isn’t nearly as simple as who has the largest nuclear arsenal. If you present false choices, you’ll always end up with screwy conclusions.

30. Lonnie,

    The only colony that the British lost in the course of an armed struggle was America. Britain’s decline as an empire has been marked by the deliberate relinquishing of territory in an orderly way. Canada, Australia, India, Hong Kong, etc. All were orderly and voluntary withdrawals in which the British were able to take with them any military assets that they desired. If Britain had a nuclear arsenal in 1800, it would all still be under their control.

    Waldo,

    See, this is what I have a problem with. Calling for a reduction in our nuclear arsenal on the sole basis of it sounding like too big a number. The number of nukes it would take to wipe out the population of Russia or the entire world, multiplied or divided by whatever factor, bears no relationship to what is a sound doctrine of nuclear deterrence.

    It’s like finding out that there are 10,000 fire extinguishers in the City of Charlottesville and calling for a reduction to 100 fire extinguishers because that would be enough fire extinguishers to put out every fire expected to start on the Downtown Mall over the next year. This would just have no relationship to reality in terms of a sound strategy for fighting fires around Charlottesville. You might need a fire extinguisher right away in any of the thousands of buildings in Charlottesville and waiting for one to be brought from elsewhere could lead to disaster. The vast majority of those fire extinguishers will probably never be used. But we need them all around anyway because we can’t predict the future and say exactly which ones will be needed.

    If we’re going to come up with a figure for how much we should reduce the nuclear arsenal by, it should be based in reality. I’m sure that we could reduce it by some amount. I am just opposed to grabbing numbers essentially out of thin air rather than as a result of a clear and meticulous plan for global response to every possible type of nuclear threat from a state actor.

    [and when I’m President I will approach the matter in exactly such a clear and meticulous way]

31. Jack points out a specific way the military constructs doctrine . . this was in fact one of the things that Rumsfeld fucked up so bad . . . in the build up to the war he thought it was absurd that the military wanted to move in so much material and personnel, way more than they needed for the proposed mission. . . he was looking at the issue as a business man . . .

    Though, I do not like having so many nuclear weapons, and I think I believe that our conventional forces can be enough of a deterrent combined with a smaller nuclear arsenal.

32. Jack, I’m not claiming to know how many nuclear missiles that we require. But I am quite certain that we do not need 10,000 of them. I feel stupid even saying that.

    This is precisely what Eisenhower warned about.

33. Waldo this is a great argument. You’ll be happy to know that you and George Bush might actually agree on something. Is that a… pig… flying outside of my window? Oh my, it is! :-)

    “The Bush administration announced in 2004 that it had decided to cut the nuclear weapons stockpile “nearly in half” by 2012, but has refused to disclose the actual numbers. Yet a fact sheet published by the Federation of American Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that the stockpile will decline from approximately 9,938 warheads today to approximately 5,047 warheads by the end of 2012.”
    http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php

Comments are closed.