Gipper
Well-Known Member
Long term, it is cheaper to dismantle them.
Why not lead by example? For what purpose would we ask other nations to match our cuts?
Offer your sources and we'll look at the math.
Our nuclear arsenal is in the neighborhood of 70,000 weapons which are stored domestically and around the globe. It's my understanding that Obama is only talking about an 80% reduction on those found outside of the United States. For the sake of argument, let's say he were talking about reducing the entire arsenal by 80%, that would still leave us with at least 14,000 nuclear weapons... Is that number not sufficient to deal with all "potential targets"?
I agree that cutting the arsenal makes sense, but why now? What is the cost to dismantle these nukes? If it is a sizable sum and considerably more money then leaving them alone, I say leave them alone. It seems to me the resources used to dismantle them could be used more effectively somewhere else.
We have much bigger fish to fry then dismantling our nukes. We are a nation with huge domestic problems. Why not deal with the elephant in the room rather than ancillary issues? I suspect BO is all about trying to change the subject with this proposal...the subject being his terrible failing presidency.
What is BO's point in doing this now? If it is to appease our enemies....somehow..in his deluded mind..., then I say this is just a typical dumb thind done by liberals.