Don't you think doing this would at least be a show of faith to the Russians that we are only trying to protect Europe and the US and not to further proliferate nuclear arms or further develop WMD? Thanks!
2007-10-27 13:04:35 · 12 answers · asked by Shh! Be vewy, vewy quiet 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Hey Monica!
2007-10-28 09:06:43 · update #1
I didn't know this was such a sore topic for some - I bet you guys are right wing conservatives!
So what if we have been reducing our nuke stockpile we still have the largest in the WORLD and it only takes ONE nuke to ignite an all out nuclear war.
By the way, I was not making an argument even if sounded like I was, and I thank you for the information on SALT, I was just making a point and if the Russians think our stockpile is still too large to justify us building a shield - don't you think there might be a reason behind this?
Anyways thanks for information but I'm giving the 10 points to the less obnoxious answer I got... Good luck.
2007-10-28 09:16:32 · update #2
hi
2007-10-27 22:18:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The US has been reducing its nuclear aresenal for years, and recently it was reported that they've been able to decommission roughly treble the expected number of warheads. They can't, however, simply be thrown in the trash bin, so it takes time. The Pentagon know this, the Russians know this, and it's unfortunate that you didn't. The Pentagon are quite happy to have new "conventional" munitions that can penetrate deeply or cause area denial that once would have required nukes. A small arsenal will always be needed as a deterrent, but the idea that the US is keeping a huge arsenal as a bullying tactic, while quite popular, is incorrect.
2007-10-27 20:56:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The nuclear arsenal has been shrinking dramatically for the last 20 years, much of it retroactive but mostly due to treaties with Russia. Russia's too has been shrinking. It doesn't really appear to be all that hot an issue any more. The rogue shield has been conclusively shown to be just what it purports to be according to various sources. The main reason Putin has made an issue of it is based on the national tendency towards paranoia of invasion of the Russian people (considering how often that has happened, with good cause). He needs to appear strong so he can continue in power while his hand-picked crony is President and set himself up for again officially becoming President sometime later. It is purely domestic power politicking on his part.
Bottom line: it either wouldn't matter or he would use it to show how he "beat" the US.
2007-10-27 22:00:02 · answer #3 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The USA has been reducing nuclear weapons since the 1970's, and is now at the lowest number ever. We are also paying billions per year to deactivate warheads and missiles that the bankrupt Russians still have.
You need a valid premise to make an arguement, and this one is not valid.
2007-10-28 01:35:03 · answer #4 · answered by Doug 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reducing the nuclear stockpiles even by half hardly eliminates the total devastation that would be caused by a nuclear war. The bombs are getting smallerl and more destructive anyway so less of them are needed to begin with.
REALLY THOUGH the bottom line is that American politicians are only talking about reducing the arsenal because it makes nations seeking their first weapon seem that much more criminal and immoral. It's like "Look, we just got rid of 1000 nuclear weapons but that rogue nation wants to build one! Guess we're gonna have to bunker buster it."
2007-10-27 20:12:19 · answer #5 · answered by Richie Paine 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Prez Bush is not building the Nuclear Shield or the Missile bases in Europe to defend/proctect the U.S., he is raising money for the Rep Part (GOP). The major contributors to the the REP Party and GOP Prez Campaigns are defense contractors. It's a form of money raising unique to the USA and one of the perks of the party in power. It's a way of getting the taxpayers to fund your campaigns.
With the REP Part so low in public esteem and the drop in campaign contributions makes such schemes as the European Missiles Bases a lucrative way of raising party funds.
2007-10-27 20:29:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm not American but I can completely understand why the American government is reluctant to destroy their yield of nuclear weaponry. It's not a nice world out there and, with quite a few countries having their own supply of weapons, why shouldn't America be able to defend itself?
2007-10-27 20:21:39 · answer #7 · answered by starchilde5 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The best defense is a good offense. Besides, the only way to defend yourself from a nuclear bomb is to counteract it with one of your own nuclear bombs.
2007-10-27 21:57:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't be concerned.
If the defense shield fails we'll reduce the nuclear arsenal as fast as we can fire them.
2007-10-27 20:09:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow, I bet the U.S. Government is thankful for you. No one every thought of such a thing until you came along. Hooray for you.
2007-10-27 20:28:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋