Nukes? Do we still need them?

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:13:50 -0400

During the heydays of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. there were 90,000 nuclear warheads? I know the Titan II missiles are gone and the Minuteman III expected to be in service until around 2030.

With the current reduction in forces should we draw down these missiles?

With the Russian getting bolder and bolder this feels like the Cold War all over again. What are you thoughts? I hate them but think we need them.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Sep 4 at 2014 4:24 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:24:49 -0400

Being stationed at Barksdale for "the incident", helped state up the Provisional AFGSC and then directly supported the Command since its standup for the last 5 years...yes it is still important.

Here is a great read on the subject.

http://www.barksdale.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123370732

Commentary - Five Propositions Regarding Nuclear Weapons

In 1990, the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Michael Dugan, was frustrated that many Airmen could not articulate the virtues and key characteristics of airpower. He issued an open challenge to his senior staff to distill the essence of air power into a set of axioms condensed enough to fit on a busin

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2014 8:44 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 20:44:12 -0400

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member. We have been trying and largely succeeding in the drawing down to approximately 5,100 nuclear weapons in the Russian and US inventories . . . with efforts underway to draw down even further by developing / deploying more modern, accurate, flexible B61 Mark12+ gravity bombs . . . but to get down to those last few hundred nuke weapons on our way down to zero nukes worldwide is fraught with strategic, technical and political difficulties that continue to be rather challenging. Warmest Regards, Sandy

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25312-the-cost-of-teaching-an-old-nuclear-weapons-new-tricks

p.s. Mutually assured destruction will only persuade rational / semi-rational adversaries. I am not entirely certain our adversaries are led by entirely rational / even semi-rational leaders. I also worry about whether our leadership has the will to use these weapons when justified.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 4 at 2014 9:36 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 21:36:05 -0400

Do we need them? Yes. What we need more though is the willingness to use them.. The deaths of thousands of our peers could have been prevented by keeping boots off the ground, and placing nukes there instead..

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Sep 4 at 2014 10:33 PM

SSG Pete Fleming — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:33:38 -0400

Yes...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2014 10:35 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:35:03 -0400

We need them now for the same reason we did then.
Mess with us, and you lose... big.

God help us if we ever have to fire one in anger, but whoever is on the receiving end had better have a really deep hole to hide in.

Remember when Ukraine agreed to give up it's nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the West? How did that one turn out? I'll bet they rue that day.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2014 11:27 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 23:27:41 -0400

Nukes are the biggest posturing tool of all. Hence they are a necessary evil.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Sep 5 at 2014 12:17 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 00:17:02 -0400

Yes, we still need them.

No, we should not draw down.

I hate them too BUT ISIS, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea all have them or will soon. If we can trust ALL of them, then we can start to reduce our stockpile.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Sep 5 at 2014 8:30 AM

MSG Wade Huffman — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:30:22 -0400

Yes, we absolutely do need them. I do hope that we never have the need to use them, but the possibility DOES exist.
It is better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2014 10:21 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:21:54 -0400

Honestly, I think the "number" of nukes is irrelevant. A single missile submarine can carry enough warheads to literally destroy all civilization on earth. Going to zero is obviously not an option, but who cares if you have 10,000 vs 1,000, when just a few dozen is enough to kill just about everyone on the planet.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Sep 5 at 2014 3:14 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:14:49 -0400

Of course, how else will I deal with ISIS when I am president?

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 5 at 2014 8:01 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:01:14 -0400

I can think of a few places we need to use them. The world needs parking lots too.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2014 10:39 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 22:39:10 -0400

Yes we need them but hope to never have to use them. God help us if that day ever comes but we must be prepared. Especially with the events that are happening in the world.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 24 at 2014 9:27 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:27:51 -0400

As much as I hate to be a part of the "do as I say, not as I do" crowd, I absolutely think we need them as long as anyone else (including Israel) has them. Unfortunately, it comes down to checks and balances, even amongst allies.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 25 at 2014 11:42 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:42:34 -0400

The famous science fiction writer, Ray Bradbury, once said that we should worship at the altar of the atomic bomb. He felt, as many did, that nuclear weapons made war unthinkable. Sadly, we still thought of ways to wage war - by proxy. With the demise of the Soviet Union, many thought that the balance of nuclear forces was no longer necessary and that we could begin eliminating them. However, a new enemy (or class of enemies) has emerged - rogue states and terrorists - many of whom worship death. Mutually Assured Destruction won't dissuade them from launching first strike nuclear weapons once they have reliable devices and delivery systems. Thus, tactical nuclear weapons and anti-delivery systems are more important. Focus should be shifted to halting the proliferation of nuclear capability and improved defensive systems (including detection systems to prevent clandestine delivery).

Bottom line: Pandora's box was opened in a project named Manhattan and we can't go back.

Response by COL George Antochy made Oct 28 at 2014 10:57 AM

COL George Antochy — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:57:56 -0400

Whether we like it or not, the United States has a target on it's back and is the big boy on the block. It is foolish and irresponsible to believe that we can prevent nuclear proliferation around the world, and the day will come when someone decides to impose their will upon us or someone else, and the only appropriate deterrent to nuclear weaponry is nuclear weaponry. Sorry to say, especially to all the 'peace'nics out there, but nukes are here to stay, especially if we desire to stay here. At least we are smarter today about nukes than we were in earlier years.

Response by Chris Gates made Dec 25 at 2021 9:07 AM

Chris Gates — Sat, 25 Dec 2021 09:07:55 -0500

The trust level is higher now.
Do we still want them?
Only to put particular matter into the stratosphere to COOL THE PLANET!

Response by Chris Gates made Dec 25 at 2021 9:08 AM

Chris Gates — Sat, 25 Dec 2021 09:08:17 -0500

Not yet...