4 ms·

Those are interesting bits: "Maintaining its current arsenal of over 10,000 nuclear warheads costs the United States approximately $31 billion annually." "Fir

Those are interesting bits: "Maintaining its current arsenal of over 10,000 nuclear warheads costs the United States approximately $31 billion annually." "Firstly, the force is too big. Without the need to target Russia’s strategic forces there simply are not enough plausible aim-points in the world for US nuclear weapons that would require 1,500–2,000 operationally deployed warheads. For example, in an extreme crisis, perhaps 50–100 nuclear weapons at most would be needed to threaten devastation on Iran, North Korea or China. "

fintler 12y ago
After a quick skim of the article, the following stood out to me as things that could make discussion with Russia more difficult: "the US strategic community continues to perceive Russia as a potential adversary" "no country other than Russia has the capability to preempt the launch of US forces by destroying a significant portion of them on the ground" also, this is interesting, but not as much: "with the possible exception of North Korea, the strength of whose rudimentary nuclear-weapons capabilities remains unknown"