Currently, the United States and Russia have made initial agreements to reduce their stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons even further.
Both Russia and the United States have aging arsenals that are in need of upgrades, however the United States has continually refused to undergo any significant upgrades to its nuclear arsenal on the grounds that it would be "destabilizing."
So let me ask you this. Is it "destabilizing" to ensure that you have a functional nuclear arsenal? The United States currently extends security guarantees to multiple nations that watch the atrophy of our arsenal with unease. If our arsenal loses its credibility, then those nations that we have extended deterrence to will most likely be forced to begin nuclear programs of their own, thus increasing worldwide proliferation. So which is better? More states possessing nuclear weapons, or the United States extended assurances to prevent this?
One might counter this point with the argument that the United States still currently possesses around 2,000 warheads. Their is serious debate among long standing allies however such as Japan, that the nuclear arsenal of the United States does not actually possess 2,000 working warheads and delivery vehicles.
Further, should the United States and Russia continue the plans to reduce weapon levels to 1,500 or so, it would ignore the gross imbalance in tactical nuclear weapons. Currently the United States has only a few hundred tactical nuclear weapons that are aged and easily targeted. Russia on the other hand is estimated to have around 5,000 tactical warheads. They are also rapidly undergoing modernization of this force, such as the ability to put these warheads of missiles and submarines.
Therefore, Russia can systematically limit the arsenal of the United States while expanding its own nuclear capability, and thus increasing its own posture in Europe and Asia. This is something that the United States needs to combat. Any arms deal must include tactical nuclear weapons or it is a deal that has no benefit for the United States.
If you believe in nuclear parity, then roughly 1,500 warheads compared to roughly 6,500 warheads should be a cause for concern.
Both Russia and the United States have aging arsenals that are in need of upgrades, however the United States has continually refused to undergo any significant upgrades to its nuclear arsenal on the grounds that it would be "destabilizing."
So let me ask you this. Is it "destabilizing" to ensure that you have a functional nuclear arsenal? The United States currently extends security guarantees to multiple nations that watch the atrophy of our arsenal with unease. If our arsenal loses its credibility, then those nations that we have extended deterrence to will most likely be forced to begin nuclear programs of their own, thus increasing worldwide proliferation. So which is better? More states possessing nuclear weapons, or the United States extended assurances to prevent this?
One might counter this point with the argument that the United States still currently possesses around 2,000 warheads. Their is serious debate among long standing allies however such as Japan, that the nuclear arsenal of the United States does not actually possess 2,000 working warheads and delivery vehicles.
Further, should the United States and Russia continue the plans to reduce weapon levels to 1,500 or so, it would ignore the gross imbalance in tactical nuclear weapons. Currently the United States has only a few hundred tactical nuclear weapons that are aged and easily targeted. Russia on the other hand is estimated to have around 5,000 tactical warheads. They are also rapidly undergoing modernization of this force, such as the ability to put these warheads of missiles and submarines.
Therefore, Russia can systematically limit the arsenal of the United States while expanding its own nuclear capability, and thus increasing its own posture in Europe and Asia. This is something that the United States needs to combat. Any arms deal must include tactical nuclear weapons or it is a deal that has no benefit for the United States.
If you believe in nuclear parity, then roughly 1,500 warheads compared to roughly 6,500 warheads should be a cause for concern.