In the world of military funding, the next decade is almost irrelevant. This is exactly the logic I'm talking about - and the reason Clinton put us in the capability hole we are in. You're focusing on the LAST war. But you're not alone. You have very good, and very powerful, company.
Watch and learn. The accident rates of early jets and early biplanes before them was also high. If you think technology stands still, you're behind already. We are spending billions on it.
What in the world are you talking about? :huh: Now, you've really lost me. First the next decade is irrelevant and now the last decade is irrelevant. :insane: Look, the post-cold-war changes came from the Pentagon, with support from all presidents and with residence from Congress trying to protect pet weapons made in their state or local bases. You can't make a case for Clinton hurting our capability one bit. Go ahead and try. The whole idea of the changes was to get out of the heavy Euro-War profile and evolve into a global intervention profile more suitable for 21st century warfare. That has been going on steadily since 1990. It has improved our capability, not hurt it.
Doubt we will ever reduce our warheads below a capability to whup their ass ten times over. Nor will Russia. Building as many as we did had their purpose(contributing to their fall), but maintenance is expensive. Not all nucs sit on a shelf like a can of peas, and the maintenance capabilities of the Russians has degraded severely since the fall of the soviet union. No reason to increase our chances of one launching because they are still using some computers from radio shack, circa 1978. I would prefer to see the money saved(if any) be spent elsewhere like intelligence. Besides our delivery systems will no doubt continue to be revamped and improved. Giving up nucs would be stupid, but reducing their levels is good and should not hurt us at all. Obama managed to do something right, imo.
the actual weapon reduction is not significant, this is just a way to agree with and have dialogues with russia, which is good.
Power Line - A Dumb Policy on Nuclear Weapons: Does It Matter? Another take on this whole issue. I see the point of what some have said here but I wonder if this president is going to far with his strategy? Some policies have changed since this announcement also!
