inst,
when it comes to nukes, we're looking at a cost-benefit bell curve...or less academically, the goldilocks method: not too few (poor deterrence) nor not too many (overkill and financial drain).
for the US this is a particularly hard calculation, because we have two opposing factors. first is that we need to extend a nuclear umbrella over allied nations. yet the other factor is that US conventional strength is such that a nuclear arms race actually restricts US freedom of action.
i don't mind a modest further reduction in nukes but i would like to see comprehensive modernization of our nuclear branch. i'm actually not sure why obama's so obsessed with the question of nukes; given the little room for further reductions, this is political capital spent for relatively little gain.
I'm curious, why would Obama do this? He seems generally to be a smart guy; what would be the benefit of mutual nuclear disarmament? Is he trying to encourage a multi-polar world? Or is this a ruse; and the precision-guided US nuclear arsenal has already achieved overkill?
for the US this is a particularly hard calculation, because we have two opposing factors. first is that we need to extend a nuclear umbrella over allied nations. yet the other factor is that US conventional strength is such that a nuclear arms race actually restricts US freedom of action.
i don't mind a modest further reduction in nukes but i would like to see comprehensive modernization of our nuclear branch. i'm actually not sure why obama's so obsessed with the question of nukes; given the little room for further reductions, this is political capital spent for relatively little gain.
Comment