A year or so ago, I gave my undergrad engineers a homework prompt: How many nuclear weapons does the US need to feel secure?
Show this thread
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.
-
-
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 -
-
-
Even the 200 is enough to screw our climate for few years. Thousands are destruction to the whole food chain, if used in urban areas.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.