Obama considering steep nuclear arms cuts

[CountDeMoney]

Only that 300 bombs in the 1950s weren't enough;  maintaining enough weapons to ensure first-strike survivability and maintain a positive retaliatory capability is no longer a strategic concern.

I'm generally the peacenik here, but is that really not a strategic concern anymore? Russia has a lot of weapons, and China could build them. I realize that no one has an incentive to strike us first, but why leave open the possibility?

Considering how real-time radar and early-warning detection systems have evolved since the 60s and the 70s, combined with the evolution of SLBM technology (not a word, grumbler!), as well as the reduction in strategic bomber forces in the world, there isn't the margin of error there once was for the old silo farms.

The reduction in force size won't negate a first strike, but the survivability of a first strike is significantly better than it was 30 years ago.  In short, we'd be able to launch fewer weapons faster, and with greater early-warning reliability, than when the old Soviet doctrine was to swamp our assets en masse' to reduce the number of second-strike launches.

[Ideologue]

OK, here's my question: is 300 warheads enough to win a first strike against Russia and PRChina, and if need be, simultaneously?

[Razgovory]

I don't think so.  I think cutting it to 300 is to low.  600 hundred maybe.

[Tonitrus]

This would likely hit the USAF/Navy the most, but I am in favor.  We don't really need more than a few hundred, if even that.  And being that this refers to "deployed", I imagine we would still have plenty in storage, if needed for alien invasion or rogue asteroids.

[CountDeMoney]

OK, here's my question: is 300 warheads enough to win a first strike against Russia and PRChina, and if need be, simultaneously?

Sure.

[Razgovory]

There's a lot of Chinese.  I think we need retain the ability to wipe out a third, just in case.  And still have some capability afterwords.

[Ideologue]

There's a lot of Chinese.  I think we need retain the ability to wipe out a third, just in case.  And still have some capability afterwords.

That's not what winning a first strike means.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Once the asteroid mass-drivers are in orbit, we won't need any nukes. 

[Neil]

Once the asteroid mass-drivers are in orbit, we won't need any nukes. 

The US will never achieve that level of space tech.  You guys have given up, and it will be up to others to decide if mankind ever gets to the stars.

[Tamas]

So you guys now trust the Russians this much, ha?

[CountDeMoney]

So you guys now trust the Russians this much, ha?

I trust their shit doesn't work any more.

[grumbler]

This would likely hit the USAF/Navy the most, but I am in favor.  We don't really need more than a few hundred, if even that.  And being that this refers to "deployed", I imagine we would still have plenty in storage, if needed for alien invasion or rogue asteroids.

It does create some interesting tradeoffs, though.  Obviously, you don't want to have 300 warheads on 30 missiles - that's too few baskets for your eggs.  OTOH, how do the two sides verify that a lower warhead count per missile has actually been implemented?

[Darth Wagtaros]

Just how many MIRV'd missiles would this result in?

[Josquius]

Makes sense. Its not just him promoting world peace and other hippy stuff, the US just doesn't need so many, they can wipe out any enemies well enough with a lot less.

[Tamas]

This would likely hit the USAF/Navy the most, but I am in favor.  We don't really need more than a few hundred, if even that.  And being that this refers to "deployed", I imagine we would still have plenty in storage, if needed for alien invasion or rogue asteroids.

It does create some interesting tradeoffs, though.  Obviously, you don't want to have 300 warheads on 30 missiles - that's too few baskets for your eggs.  OTOH, how do the two sides verify that a lower warhead count per missile has actually been implemented?

The notion that the Russians are not cheating on these easily cheat-able treaties is ridicoulous.