Changing the Nuclear Posture Over Time

For John, BLUF:  Nuclear weapons deter war.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Given the current debate about the need to spend billions to update and protect our nuclear arsenal,♠ this article is quite relevant. There are two great charts accompanying the article, but Copyright being what it is, I leave it to you, the reader, to click on the Link.

The article, in The New York Times,by Mr William J Broad, is titled "Which President Cut the Most Nukes?".♥  Here is the lede:

DOVES who once cheered President Obama for his antinuclear crusades and later fell silent as he backpedaled are now lining up to denounce him. A recent skewering by the Federation of American Scientists details how Mr. Obama, despite calling repeatedly for "a world without nuclear weapons," has reduced the size of the nation's atomic stockpile far less than did any of his three immediate predecessors, including both Presidents Bush.

Frankly, nuclear weapons help keep us safe and four allies and friends safe.  Notwithstanding what you read in the papers, nuclear weapons tend to make their owners a little more cautious.  On the one hand, they are not expecting any "bolt from the blue" attack that would cause them to rush into a war to protect themselves.  On the other hand, they feel that potential trouble makers are a little more cautious.  There are still wars, but we don't see things like the string from the Franco-Prussian War to The Great War (WWI) to World War II.  And that is just as well.

Hat tip to a friend of mine down in Connecticut.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  From the Link, "The secretary [Hagel] said the [S]ervices are looking at a 10 percent increase in funding over five years.  Today, the U.S. spends about $15 billion to $16 billion on our nuclear enterprise."
♥  Hint.  It isn't who you likely think it is.