3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoThat 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?