Why the Nuclear Triad MUST be maintained permanently and the New START scrapped

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Why the Nuclear Triad MUST be maintained permanently and the New START scrapped”.


  • Zbigniew Mazurak

    Thanks, Jan! Sadly, President Bush was no better on these issues than Obama. He cut America’s total and deployed nuclear arsenal significantly, although most of the warheads he withdrew from service were put in storage, and he also signed a useless and unverifiable treaty (the SORT, AKA the Moscow Treaty of 2002). Since the end of the Cold War, America’s nuclear muscle has been dwindling nonstop, while China has dramatically increased its nuclear arsenal. Now Russia, after making deep cuts in the 1990s, is again growing its arsenal.

    In the Bush Administration, and the groups supporting it, the prevailing view appeared to be that missile defense can replace nuclear weapons one day. Sadly, that is not true; missile defense can only complement, not replace, nuclear weapons.

  • Truly appreciate your intellectual aka knowledgeable common sense approach to this vital issue. One (I) wonder where the inherent ‘self survival’ instinct is of those that think that disarming is a ‘good’ thing. To put it in the vernacular, How many would allow a rattlesnake to crawl in their bed at will?

    Didn’t Bush refuse to sign the START or similar?

    A nation is only as strong as its defense….