Cutting Back Our Nuke Supply Is a Bad Idea

on February 16, 2012 at 9:11 PM

nuke On Wednesday, congressional Republicans pushed back on the rumor that President Obama will cut our nuclear force back by as much as 80 percent. The president has said in the past that his goal is to reduce the number of nuclear warheads we own, and in the process, make the world a safer place.

That’s completely illogical.

In a perfect world, there would be no bad guys, and no need for weapons of mass destruction. In a perfect world, everyone would share their milk and cookies (without even being asked!), take turns on the swings, and never punch anyone else in the nose because they didn’t like the shape of it.

We don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world where bad guys do exist, and they would stop at nothing to destroy perfectly innocent nations. So then the question becomes: How do we keep them at bay?

The only way to keep our enemies from attacking us is to have bigger, badder weapons than them. They don’t even have to be used -- the simple fact that they exist, and that our enemies know they exist -- can be enough to deter them from attacking us.

Iran is developing their nuclear technology. Iran, whose leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sees the United States as the Great Satan. Do you really think that some evil dude that wants to destroy a country for simply existing will stop trying because we call a time-out?

What about North Korea? Are we safe from them? They have nukes, are making more, and are strengthening their relationship with Iran. What’s worse than one bully on the playground? Two of them teaming up together to wreck havoc.

War is tragic, and no decent person would wish it upon anyone else. By having a large supply of nuclear warheads ready to be deployed if necessary, we send a simple message: Don’t even think about messing with us, or you will suffer the consequences.

Maintaining powerful weapons does not invite war – it deters it.

Image via BlatantWorld/Flickr

Filed Under: barack obama, in the news, islam, politics, terrorism

Like What You Just Read?

Click the "Like" button below to get Jenny Erikson's stories on Facebook.

Comments (17)

Nonmember comment from LogicalMommy

on Feb 16, 2012 at 9:21 PM

"They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue.."

That is not only a Hollywood movie sentiment, but also completely irrational and juvenile, not unlike your view on nuclear disarmament, or lack-thereof. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, albeit flawed and lacking in enforcement at least has guidelines for deescalation. This nonsense brinkmanship perpetuated by those ignorant and fearful few is what gets people killed, not the lack of weapons to protect us from the faceless "Them" of the world.

Report this comment

Bullet_Proof_Me

on Feb 16, 2012 at 9:27 PM

You're a hypocrit as are all people who think that the U.S. has the right to tell other countries to disarm their nukes while we keep our own. Everyone is so worried that Iran or North Korea will drop a bomb on us, yet we are the ONLY country to have ever used it. In fact, we used it twice. The U.S. was responsible for one of the most egregious acts of war known to man yet feel superior to others. You keep your Tony Stark philosophy and enjoy nuclear winter when it comes.

Nonmember comment from Tracy

on Feb 16, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Sounds suspiciously like mutually assured destruction to me. Going back in time, are we?

PonyChaser

on Feb 16, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Getting rid of our nukes is the same mentality that causes people to want guns banned: "it will save lives!" The problem is, the bad guys don't care about the rules. You can have all of the gun-control laws in the world, disarm every law-abiding citizen in the country, and the gang-bangers aren't going to care.

It is the same, globally. Iran doesn't care about Nuclear Disarmament Treaties. Neither does North Korea. They laugh at us for trying to make them. You're right - it is hypocritical of us to have a stash of weapons and expect them not to. But it is suicide for us to get rid of ours while they are building up theirs.

Facebook comment from Courtney Jefferson

on Feb 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM

This article just shows how uneducated the author is. First, the United States has around 8500 nuclear warheads, 1500 of which are active. We do not need this many nuclear weapons. Did you know that on Minot air force base in 2007 a B-52 was loaded with 6 nuclear warheads BY ACCIDENT. Former President George W. Bush had this same mentlity of building our nuclear weapons program when he came into office. The result was not the deterrence of nuclear weapons programs but the development of a nuclear weapon in North Korea (and the advancement of development in Iran) and the testing of the North Korean nuke in 2006. You cannot fight fire with fire. Nuclear proliferation is not the way to keep our country safe, negotiation is. And not to mention we can detect and destroy and nuclear weapon that is aimed at the United States. Why would starting an arms race make any sense? The only place North Korea is going to shoot a nuke is at South Korea and the only place Iran would shoot a nuke is Israel.

J_andrews8081

on Feb 17, 2012 at 12:32 AM

thanks for proving you're a huge nutcase. :)

on Feb 17, 2012 at 12:38 AM

also, thanks commenters! WE ARE HYPOCRITES. unless we reduce our nuke supply. How awful is it to assume we should have things we deny other countries of for near centuries after use of ANY military force? We're no target. We're a failing nation, as Courtney said, we cant fight with proliferation of a "fear" society. Nukes won't save us. Humanity could, though. People like YOU, Jenny, destroy our hope for that. Congrats.

Facebook comment from Samantha Wortham

on Feb 17, 2012 at 2:53 AM

Ugh, how do you explain stupid to stupid people?

mamajen82

on Feb 17, 2012 at 8:37 AM

It's history people. Reduce military force, war happens. Reduce weaponry, attacks happen. Reduce nuclear force, what do you really think is going to happen? History will repeat itself.

DebaLa

on Feb 17, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Um, then why not just SAY we have more warheads if these "threats" are so effective?? smh

And by your logic, why don't we do a good deed and just nuke countries "proactive-like," you know —scorched earth — just to avoid the whole 'distasteful' mess.

You are a time-machine whose lever only goes "back," Jenny, I'll say that.