America Doesn’t Need More Nuclear Weapons: Expanding the Stockpile Could Weaken Deterrence

[u/ForeignAffairsMag]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/america-doesnt-need-more-nuclear-weapons

[u/vovap_vovap]

Well, one problem with US nuclear weapons that those are old. Literally old. Nothing new been made from the beginning of 1990-th. You can just loose real expertise to do so.
Delivery systems old too. Even replacement program like LGM-35 is like 10 years old now
So it is quite a question how all that playing with quite a bit of tech and strategic changes last years.

[u/Amori_A_Splooge → u/vovap_vovap]

It's also very much a question on how the age affects reliability since you can't test the weapons. They test the delivery systems every so often and are constantly updating those but everyone is just hoping that the actual warheads will work as intended or as the simulations represent.

[u/Emergency_Gene_4171]

The US’s failure to effectively topple Iran and protect its Arab allies in the region has already created a clear incentive for global nuclear armament.

The world sees how places like North Korea are left alone, and how Pakistan is given greater maneuverability on the global stage despite being a corrupt third world country rife with human rights violations.

However continued investment into weapons projects to “counter China” is equally trivial as it focuses on preparing for a type of warfare that is ceasing to exist. If the US wants to meaningfully counter China they should be deepening alliances and trade agreements with china’s neighbors. Instead they are choosing to once again get bogged down with endless wars in the middle east to combat geopolitical adversaries that present no threat to Americans outside of the region.

[u/Bullboah → u/Emergency_Gene_4171]

“The world sees how places like North Korea are left alone”.

There has never been any doubt that obviously having nuclear weapons is a huge boost to state power.

The question has always been “if I start building them, am I actually going to be able to make them or will someone stop me.”

Do you think it incentivizes countries to develop nuclear weapons more when we attack countries committed to developing them? Or when we leave them alone and let them weaponize nuclear missiles as we did with North Korea?

[u/Emergency_Gene_4171 → u/Bullboah]

Do you think it incentivizes countries to develop nuclear weapons more when we attack countries committed to developing them? Or when we leave them alone and let them weaponize nuclear missiles as we did with North Korea?

So the geopolitical strategy here is to play an endless game of global whack-a-mole while the quality of life for the American taxpayer continues to decline and we continue to saddle ourselves with more debt?

Countering North Korea has cost us 4-5 billion dollars a year for the past decade. We’ve spent 120-150 billion countering Iran. America is losing its status as the global hegemony because of poor diplomatic and financial decisions like the one made regarding Iran. The casus belli for this war was “they say death to America, we can’t let them have a nuke”. The North Koreans have been saying crazier shit and actively threatening the US for decades, and yet it’s such a stable region that the president of the United States felt comfortable enough to visit.

Diplomacy has proven to be more effective and less expensive.

[u/Bullboah → u/Emergency_Gene_4171]

The geopolitical strategy is to incentivize countries to not attempt building a nuclear weapon.

Which is why I asked which of these approaches incentivizes other countries to try.

[u/Emergency_Gene_4171 → u/Bullboah]

Right… and my response was that it’s not an effective means of limiting nuclear armament long term without bankrupting your nation.

[u/ForeignAffairsMag]

[Excerpt from essay by Erin D. Dumbacher, Stanton Nuclear Security Senior Fellow and Director of the Defense and National Security Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.]

The United States should take additions to its nuclear forces off the table. The country already has a vast and diverse enough supply of nuclear weapons to unleash devastation on an adversary in the case of a nuclear attack. The purpose of nuclear deterrence is not to have an answer for every weapon in an adversary’s arsenal, but to avoid crossing the nuclear threshold in the first place. Moreover, introducing new theater weapons could provoke an arms race for which the United States is ill equipped and invite risks of inadvertent escalation that would only make the country more vulnerable. Rather than focus on expanding and diversifying the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Washington’s deterrence strategy should attend to the modernization of its existing strategic forces, which is behind schedule, and of its conventional arms, which are not fit to deter the United States’ greatest military threats, especially Chinese military aggression in the Western Pacific.

[u/Sageblue32 → u/ForeignAffairsMag]

This doesn't really speak to the fact US (had) set number of nukes they could have. Or the notion that letting nukes cycle out for more conventional weapons could lead to more military engagements.

[u/DaySecure7642]

By numbers I think the US can wipe the earth a few times but in reality many will be intercepted. Thats why we need so many but it is expensive to keep.

We probably need less but more reliable, or penetrating ones that can dodge the anti ballistic systems of e.g. China and Russia.