Amazon.com Widgets

Should the US focus on increasing it's nuclear arsenal as well as development of more powerful warheads?

Asked by: Tallen24607
  • In my opinion it is necessary to increase our arsenal in order to strengthen and maintain national security.

    We live in a world where terrorism is a threat to international and national security. Other threats towards national and global include Iran and North Korea. Therefore I see that we must have a strong nuclear arsenal that is readily available in the event that terrorism or some rogue nation can be dealt with immediately with extreme prejudice.

  • Yes Oh Yes

    Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

    Posted by: efez
  • Its already a serious case of overkill

    Given the effectiveness of modern-day delivery systems and the sever lack of an adequate defense measure, a few hundred nukes is all one would need need to wipe out most of the nations on the planet. Getting into the thousands range is just a waste of money, resources, and time.

    Its also a relic of the cold war era where strength was measure by how many bombs would had, which makes it nothing more than an international d*ck measuring contest. Both the US and Russia have at least stopped the build up and started reducing their arsenal to reasonable measure.

    Plus large arsenals are very difficult (and expensive) to update, so they quickly become obsolete (some of our silos still use floppy discs). A smaller arsenal is much easier to maintain and improve upon. If I could make a suggestion to the DOD, I would say scrap the current system and build 500 or so new, modern weapons and delivery systems from scratch.

  • Just the Oppostie

    Our nation needs to put more focus into decreasing our nuclear arsenal, not building it up.

    The United States alone has enough nuclear weapons to kill every living human on the planet. When you add that with Russia, China, India, and Pakistan's supply, you are talking about enough nuclear weapons to cause the next mass extinction.

    What could we possibly need more nukes for?

  • Of course not!

    The Untied States has already been voted the biggest threat to world peace in a 2013 poll. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-threat-peace-world-guess-who-its-us .

    Further building of an arsenal of doomsday weapons of America who already have enough to destroy the earth many times olver would only strengthen other countries (such a Iran) NEED to develop similar such weapons in a hope for deterrence.

    The U.S.A is the ONLY country in DIRECT violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty right now.

    Have we learned nothing from the cold war nuclear arms race that came within an inch of nuclear war?

    Anybody who is saying yes is;
    A) a total idiot with little understanding of the real world

    B) American

    C) Both

  • Of course not!

    The Untied States has already been voted the biggest threat to world peace in a 2013 poll. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-threat-peace-world-guess-who-its-us .

    Further building of an arsenal of doomsday weapons of America who already have enough to destroy the earth many times olver would only strengthen other countries (such a Iran) NEED to develop similar such weapons in a hope for deterrence.

    The U.S.A is the ONLY country in DIRECT violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty right now.

    Have we learned nothing from the cold war nuclear arms race that came within an inch of nuclear war?

    Anybody who is saying yes is;
    A) a total idiot with little understanding of the real world

    B) American

    C) Both

  • We need to reduce it.

    We already have enough nukes to wipe out very one, we only need enough to continue the trend of "mutual assured destruction". Nukes are also useless in our current military situation, where we are trying to save the lives of people living in areas controlled by terrorists. I don't know about you, but it's hard to liberate people if they have been vaporized.

  • There would be no point

    There is no point and that would be a huge waste of money. The US already has an a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the entire world's population several times over. People can only die once. Any deterrent effect that nuclear weapons has has plateaued and adding more would not mean more nuclear deterrence.

  • Yeah, we kinda do

    We used to have really powerful nuclear bombs; what we have in our arsenal today is probably insufficient (they're literally using one such nuclear bomb, a modified B-61, as a conventional weapon). We need stronger nukes. As strong as the strongest that we've had in our arsenal during the Cold War. There's no need to make them stronger than that, though. We should also make sure that every nuclear bomb in our arsenal is in optimal condition and ready to be used at any time.
    Most importantly, though, we need to modernize our channels of delivery, most notably our ballistic missiles which we put the nuclear bombs on. If Russia is able to shoot our ICBMs out of the sky then that makes our deterrent force kinda useless, doesn't it?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.