The answers varied. Some liked the status quo — a few thousand. Some thought you could go down to a few hundred, per UK/France/China.
Show this thread
A year or so ago, I gave my undergrad engineers a homework prompt: How many nuclear weapons does the US need to feel secure?
-
-
-
Some thought you could go down to a dozen or so. A few thought maybe zero, but most thought a non-zero number sounded more realistic.
Show this thread -
Literally none of them would have said "10X the current number." Not because I'm oppressive. Because it's *stupid.* https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-wanted-dramatic-increase-nuclear-arsenal-meeting-military-leaders-n809701 …
Show this thread -
Because it would indicate a fragility the United States does not have. Because they recognize that Russia would feel compelled to match.
Show this thread -
Because they recognize that there are costs and risks. Because they recognize that this is a policy question, not a penis-measuring contest.
Show this thread -
The good news here is that literally nobody in the military or government probably thinks that a 10X increase is feasible or a good idea.
Show this thread -
And Trump's attention span is too short, and his will too weak, to pull something like that off. He has no clue what is behind the numbers.
Show this thread -
He doesn't realize that you can't just conjure nukes out of thin air, that they can't just be manufactured at will, on the spot anymore.
Show this thread -
But it confirms again this obvious truth: he is manifestly unfit to be dealing with nuclear weapons. And yet...https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/no-one-can-stop-president-trump-from-using-nuclear-weapons-thats-by-design/?utm_term=.f299c4136e5d …
Show this thread -
For what it is worth, I do not think it is worth even analyzing this as any kind of realistic policy proposal. It is impossible.
Show this thread -
It is just a sign of his lack of understanding of the issues, and perhaps a window into his own insecurities.
Show this thread -
To illustrate the issue, to produce ~1,000 warheads/year, you need the nuclear complex that Eisenhower had. That took a decade to build.
Show this thread -
That is just the warheads. You would need much more to produce the missiles, subs, bombers, that might carry them. It's not happening.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's an engineering economics problem. But the first question should be what does 'feel secure' mean?
-
Agree 100%. This is why I phrase the question this way, and not "how many should US have?" Draws attention to the difficult question.
-
Does it not also depend on what the other guy has? If no one else had them, would zero leave the US feeling secure? If not, why not?
-
It's subjective. For many, the idea of a nuclear exchange is unthinkable. What do we win if we wipe out an enemy at the cost of most of US?
-
Which is the argument for making them illegal and moving to full denuclearisation. A Mexican stand off is never going to feel safe.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I'll answer with a question: How many guns do Americans need to feel secure?
-
That is an individual question. I myself believe two per family member. A long rifle and a handgun. And lots of ammo. Training is big too.
-
I am for no handguns. Those have been 99.99% of the problem. "Self-protection" has led us where we are today.
-
I grew up around guns but only used for deer hunting & only people with handguns were police. Now it’s like the Wild West due to NRA
-
Yup. Same here. I was a cop in the 80s in TX. In those days, it was not necessary to assume everyone was packing. You acted as such, but /1
-
actually finding a weapon was rare. Now it's all open and concealed carry. I was horrified at the "private militia" in Charlottesville. /2
-
How does anyone know who are the cops? The proliferation of weapons benefits NRA and white supremacists who can use "everyone's got /3
-
weapon" as excuse for police killing unarmed PoC. In the meantime, innocent ppl, kids, die every day, victims of gun violence. /end
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.