Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

2 thoughts on “Why the Nuclear Triad MUST be maintained permanently and the New START scrapped

  1. Zbigniew Mazurak Post author

    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.

  2. Jan Brown

    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….

Comments are closed.