Obama administration embraces major new cut in nuclear weapons
Source: Miami Herald
Senior Obama administration officials have agreed that the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. military deploys could be cut by at least a third without harming national security, according to those involved in the deliberations.
Such a reduction would open the door to billions of dollars in military savings, which might ease the federal budget deficit. It also would improve prospects for a new arms deal with Russia before President Barack Obama leaves office, those involved said, but its likely to draw fire from conservatives, if previous debate on the issue is any guide.
The results of the internal review havent been announced, but theyre reflected in a proposed classified directive prepared for Obamas signature that details how U.S. nuclear weapons should be targeted against potential foes, according to four people with direct knowledge of the documents content. The sources, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they werent authorized to talk to a reporter about the review, described the president as fully on board, but said he hasnt signed the document.
The document directs the first detailed Pentagon revisions in U.S. targeting since 2009, when the militarys nuclear war planners last took account for the substantial shrinkage roughly by half from 2000 to 2008 in the number of nuclear weapons in the American arsenal. It makes clear that an even smaller nuclear force can still meet all defense requirements.
<snip>
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/08/v-fullstory/3222265/obama-administration-embraces.html
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)...theyre poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons.
Ivan isn't going to send a wave of ICBMs at us, either.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)MAD appears to have worked through the Cold War, and the fact that we have a fundamentally untraceable and unreachable deterrent somewhere out there is more of a protection than hardened but reachable nukes. The fact that a can of sunshine is possibly 30 minutes from your capital will keep "sane" belligerents from glassing a US city or American base.
As for other actors? We need to develop a practical and effective ABM system, and once that umbrella is in place, then we consider mothballing our nuclear deterrent.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Subs and bombers have more personnel costs.
Thanks for your response.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Dump the silos and the Bomber delivered strat nukes.
If you take the nukes off the SSBN's they'll still keep the boats, and just turn them into joint seal delivery and cruise missile launch platforms.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)I think he's concerned about losing funding for Oak Ridge, TN Y-12 facility.
kooljerk666
(776 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)
Bananas, you and I & L0oniX were tha only ones who Posted way back in October 2012.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=67223
Look people, if India & Pakistan nuke each other, odds are it would be worse than the Permian extinction.
If you have kids or care about life on earth (I care about all, but humans are in last place) than you ought to be campaigning against nukes. (i worry who will take care of the dogs & puppies?)
I would rather have all the molecules in my body blown to atoms than live through a nuke war & die slowly from starvation & radiation.
You know last summer they discovered a warp drive that could get 4.3 light years in two weeks. I have finally decided the human race has no place screwing up the galaxy as bad as we are doing here at home.
Not that my opinion matters...................
warp drive soon? http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive
or extinction, which comes first?
underpants
(182,829 posts)RW radio was telling the dashboard believers today about this in outrage...and then complaining about not cutting spending
Trascoli
(194 posts)nukes too