Let's Talk About Nukes

In 2008, President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for advocating the elimination of nuclear weapons. The US and Russia negotiated new treaties and eliminated a substantial number of nuclear warheads, principally their oldest and biggest. A nuclear world is a laudable goal. Alas, it was not meant to be. For a variety of reasons, now, in 2015, the major powers (Russia and China) are modernizing and increasing their nuclear forces, while the smaller powers (Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran) are increasing their stockpiles or working towards that goal, while many non-nuclear countries (for example, Saudia Arabia and South Korea) are thinking seriously of joining the club. The US has relied on nukes for 70 years. Immediately after World War II, people in the US were tired of fighting, tired of sacrificing, and the notion of maintaining large, standing armed forces to deter the USSR in Europe was an anathema. Despite misgivings, the atomic bomb at first and the hydrogen bomb later fit with America's predilection for overwhelming firepower and superior technology. The USSR kept between 2.8 and 5.3 million men under arms, while the US demobilized to less than a million (from >8 million at the peak of WWII). At its peak, the USSR had over 500 infantry divisions and 50 tank divisions, while the US peaked at 90 infantry and 16 tank divisions. To keep the USSR out of Western Europe, the US gambled on nuclear deterrence, and won. At the end of the cold war, the idea of decreasing or eliminating nuclear weapons grew attractive. There is precedence for attempting to ban classes of weapons, as the world's experience with chemical weapons after WWI shows. The dual issues of nuclear proliferation and nuclear winter were much better understood in the 1990's, and mayny former nuclear proponents, such as Sam Nunn, came out in favor of eliminating them to prevent the spread of nukes to non-nuclear states and/or terrorists. Fast forward to 2015, and we see a new interest in nuclear weapons in almost every country except the US. And while the world would might be a better place without nukes, it doesn't appear that the US can make that happen all alone. Instead, we should consider modernizing out forces to maintain parity with the other major world powers. In fact, US nuclear forces have become dangerously outdated and underfunded. This is remarkable, because nuclear weapons are much cheaper to procure than conventional forces. President Eisenhower relied on the "better bang for the buck" throughout his term to deter the USSR while allowing the domestic economy to grow and prosper. While there is a tendency to regard nuclear weapons expenses as wasted money (after all, we'll never use them, right?) the benefits of deterring our enemies is money well spent. In addition, while we can afford to make mistakes with conventional weapons, the price of a mistake when dealing with nukes is much greater. We really can't afford to not maintain our nuclear forces, especially since China and Russia are modernizing their. It is unfortunate in the extreme that we must rely on nuclear weapons to keep the US safe. It is unfortunate that we have to lock the doors of our homes and cars. It is unfortunate that we have to take precautions against terrorists. But we can't afford to see the world the way we wish it to be, as opposed to the way it is today. Seventy years after the creation of nuclear weapons by the US, we still exist as a country in part due to the existence of these weapons, and we will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future.