3 ms·

After spending and upgrading all these facilities, wouldn’t this make America, and every other country, less safe in aggregate? Since in the current environmen

After spending and upgrading all these facilities, wouldn’t this make America, and every other country, less safe in aggregate? Since in the current environment it’s impossible to imagine decision makers in other world capitals wouldn’t respond and enact countermeasures accordingly.

rightbyte 2y ago
Yes. I feel like most "national security" politicians that push policies are emotion driven to a way greater extent than the rest.
hollerith 2y ago
The US is replacing systems that are well beyond the lifespan anticipated for them when they were designed: it is not AFAICT increasing total number of weapons. Also, they're not doing anything AFAICT that Russia hasn't already finished doing. Also, I bet the Times is including the cost of the B-22, which is technically part of the US strategic arsenal in that it can carry nukes, but if you could ask Pentagon leaders why they want it, they'd reply mainly with non-nuclear missions. The only reason South Korea, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, etc, don't have nukes is that they have felt safe enough in the security guarantees made to them by the US, but if the US's strategic arsenal continues to age while Russia and China modernize theirs, how long will they feel safe enough?
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  That may be what the pentagon believes and desires others to believe… But since those in other world capitals aren’t mind readers nor can they inspect every department and facility to verify these claims, then it’s practically certain they will assume negative intentions to some degree…?
- dietr1ch 2y ago
  > The US is replacing systems that are well beyond the lifespan anticipated for them when they were designed: it is not AFAICT increasing total number of weapons. Well, if they were well beyond their anticipated lifetime, then the number was down and things were fine.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    >then the number was down I don't follow. The number of what?
jerlam 2y ago
Countries eventually recognize that arms races are bad not just for safety but also for economic reasons, so nuclear arms reduction treaties such as START are signed. But even in the confines of those treaties, each country is obliged to make their fixed number of warheads to be better than others. Not sure that it's relevant but Russia stopped participating in the current US-Russia treaty (New START) in 2023 and it would expire in 2026 regardless.

rightbyte 2y ago

Yes. I feel like most "national security" politicians that push policies are emotion driven to a way greater extent than the rest.

hollerith 2y ago

The US is replacing systems that are well beyond the lifespan anticipated for them when they were designed: it is not AFAICT increasing total number of weapons. Also, they're not doing anything AFAICT that Russia hasn't already finished doing. Also, I bet the Times is including the cost of the B-22, which is technically part of the US strategic arsenal in that it can carry nukes, but if you could ask Pentagon leaders why they want it, they'd reply mainly with non-nuclear missions. The only reason South Korea, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, etc, don't have nukes is that they have felt safe enough in the security guarantees made to them by the US, but if the US's strategic arsenal continues to age while Russia and China modernize theirs, how long will they feel safe enough?

MichaelZuo 2y ago
That may be what the pentagon believes and desires others to believe… But since those in other world capitals aren’t mind readers nor can they inspect every department and facility to verify these claims, then it’s practically certain they will assume negative intentions to some degree…?
dietr1ch 2y ago
> The US is replacing systems that are well beyond the lifespan anticipated for them when they were designed: it is not AFAICT increasing total number of weapons. Well, if they were well beyond their anticipated lifetime, then the number was down and things were fine.
- hollerith 2y ago
  >then the number was down I don't follow. The number of what?

jerlam 2y ago

Countries eventually recognize that arms races are bad not just for safety but also for economic reasons, so nuclear arms reduction treaties such as START are signed. But even in the confines of those treaties, each country is obliged to make their fixed number of warheads to be better than others. Not sure that it's relevant but Russia stopped participating in the current US-Russia treaty (New START) in 2023 and it would expire in 2026 regardless.