Apocalypse Soon
By Robert S. McNamara
Foreign Policy - May/June 2005 Issue
Robert McNamara is worried. He knows how close we've come. His counsel helped the Kennedy administration avert nuclear catastrophe during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, he believes the United States must no longer rely on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. To do so is immoral, illegal and dreadfully dangerous.
It is time - well past time, in my view - for the United States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. At the risk of appearing simplistic and provocative, I would characterize current US nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the US nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power - a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years. Much of the current US nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years.
Today, the United States has deployed approximately 4,500 strategic, offensive nuclear warheads. Russia has roughly 3,800. The strategic forces of Britain, France, and China are considerably smaller, with 200–400 nuclear weapons in each state's arsenal. The new nuclear states of Pakistan and India have fewer than 100 weapons each. North Korea now claims to have developed nuclear weapons, and US intelligence agencies estimate that Pyongyang has enough fissile material for 2–8 bombs.
How destructive are these weapons? The average US warhead has a destructive power 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. Of the 8,000 active or operational US warheads, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes' warning. How are these weapons to be used? The United States has never endorsed the policy of "no first use," not during my seven years as secretary or since. We have been and remain prepared to initiate the use of nuclear weapons - by the decision of one person, the president - against either a nuclear or nonnuclear enemy whenever we believe it is in our interest to do so. For decades, US nuclear forces have been sufficiently strong to absorb a first strike and then inflict "unacceptable" damage on an opponent. This has been and (so long as we face a nuclear-armed, potential adversary) must continue to be the foundation of our nuclear deterrent.
Read the entire article at: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050505B.shtml
I on the other hand think they need to be limited. Why would i be in favor of nuclear weapon???
I will tell you why. As of right now, they are a deterrent. What that means is, if any country were to majorly attack the US or an allie, they "KNOW" they will be vaporized and their is nothing that can prevent it. PERIOD!
Yeah, N Korea makes many threats, but I serially don't think they would dare attack the US, muchless nuke it, at least not taking credit for it. Why not, because "1" ICBM with about 20 warheads in it could destroy every major city in N Korea. We have 4-6000 of these bad boys, get it.
Without the threat of nuclear weapons, the balance of power would swing away from the US and it's allies.
With conventional armies and weapons, hmmm, China has 1-2 million man army-500 million man reserve....Think with out nukes, how big an army India could field-over 1 billion people there. The world would be a very different place and we (the US) would not like it.
