Should we reduce our nuclear weapon stockpile by 75%?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_nuclear_weapons;_ylt=AqjfOzc0N52g_4j11kvunVcDW7oF

Answer 1

Why not? We have enough to destroy the world a thousand times over. How many times do we really need to destroy the world? Wouldn't 250 times be sufficient?

Answer 2

I am afraid to answer this one as a feel that anything I say may be chopped up and used out of context. Regardless of that I will state that it is in the best interests of the United States to reduce the number of warheads in our arsenal. With absolutely no regard to what other nations think on this we should implement the newer, more robust warhead system currently being asked for by the administration, the result would be a leaner, safer, more modern and efficient arsenal that would benifit OUR nation in many ways. Much of the old warhead material could and should be used to fuel new nuclear power plants. Which will never happen if the democrats refuse to quit playing partisan politics and instead continue to ignore the benifits of safe, efficient modern nuclear power. The money saved by reducing the storage and maintanance costs of our current warheads would go a long way to funding these new plants. I could go on about the benifits of such a reduction and updating of our nuclear arsenal, but fear any informed, intelligent offering would only fall on deaf ears.

Answer 3

The only reason we had so many was to maintain a second strike capacity, that is, even if a large fraction were destroyed in an attack on the US we would still have enough left to be a deterrent. Since the fall of the USSR there is no country that could deliver first strike that would damage our nuclear capacity so there is no reason to maintain the large stockpile. Nuclear weapon deteriorate over time so maintaining a stock pile cost a lot of money which would be wasted if we have no reason to have them so we should reduce the number. Our defense dollars would buy more protection if spent on other things.

Answer 4

With so many higher level people in world going mad, why should we give them the power to destroy the Earth even 1 time over? Superman is right. Dismantle ALL nuclear weapons. We just don't need them.

If some crazy person causes a chain reaction of even a small number of detonations, everyone could die. The only known inhabitable planet that we know, will be gone forever.

If this keeps up, we better start creating Martian and Lunar colonies, because Mars and the moon may be the only available places left to live without nuclear fallout.

PLEASE WORLD. LET US ALL TRY TO REGAIN COMMON DECENCY. NEVERMIND OVER POPULATION FEARS. THE WORLD IS BIG ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE. REALLY!

CAN WE ALL PLEASE JUST STOP KILLING EACH OTHER. IT IS EASIER THAN YOU THINK!

God is God. It does not matter what religion you call Him. Why fight over God?

Why fight over obsolite materials like oil, diamonds, and gold. They will still be here long after we all are killed fighting over them; And those things don't even care if we do fight over them.

Rich people. GROW UP! Don't be afraid to be generous. You can't take billions of dollars into Heaven.
But Heaven will judge you if your money does no good, sitting in the bank forever.

Answer 5

Yeah, why not? We already have enough nuclear weapons as it is.

Answer 6

why? you are assuming that weapons remain viable indefinitely,which is not the case.weapons are continually updated and reworked to keep arsenal a viable deterrent option.
Nuclear genie is out of the bottle,nothing we can do about it.

Answer 7

Absolutely not. If anything we need to add more and also upgrade the obsolete ones all the time as well as stock pile more neutron bombs.

Answer 8

Reduce nuclear wars to guarantee the survival of mankind.

Answer 9

No increase it by 75%

Answer 10

I don't think its necessary to get rid of them...why not just stop producing them if its a concern?