As part of its plan to lower the cost for defense, President Barack Obama’s administration is considering various options to reduce our arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Currently we have about 1,500 warheads of various shapes and sizes in that arsenal. The Department of Defense is considering lowering that number to about 400 warheads.
U.S. Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, calls such drastic reduction “reckless lunacy.” Other options include limiting warheads to about 1,100 or limiting them to about 800. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta indicates that no decisions have yet been made.
The debate, becoming very partisan and heated and sure to flow into campaign rhetoric, is over the wrong numbers. The real cost of any nuclear arsenal is in the platforms and personnel that are capable of launching the warheads, not the cost of the warheads themselves. Guns are much more expensive than bullets, and we seem to be arguing over the number of bullets to have on hand.
The real cost of nuclear deterrence, which is the only reason we maintain a nuclear arsenal, is the combined cost of people, highly trained and screened people, weapons systems/platforms and warheads. What the country must decide is how many people, platforms and warheads are needed to deter a nuclear attack against America or places elsewhere in the world.
More specifically, how many B-2 bombers, Trident submarines and land-based missiles are needed. That is where the big bucks are spent, as well as on the people needed to maintain an alert status at all times.
Despite everyone’s desire to never again consider the use of nuclear weapons, the world in not yet at that point. Credible nuclear deterrence remains the single most important element of our defense posture.
Unilaterally tinkering with that arsenal without serious negotiations with others is dangerous as well. Upsetting the balance could invite disaster of the worst sort, in our view.
Opinion
Our View: Upsetting the nulcear balance
- Opinion
-
-
Our View: Victims should come first
Millions of dollars in donations have poured in from around the world since the May 22, 2011, tornado. Those donations represent money from lemonade stands, charity auctions, corporate gifts and celebrity checks, just to name a few. In fact, one year later donations continue to come to Joplin.
-
Beth Meeker, guest columnist: Same-sex marriage battle a quest for equal rights
I would like to take a moment to reply to guest columnist Anson Burlingame’s, “The Marriage Debate” (Globe, May 13).
-
Sunday Forum: 2012 graduation speakers key on tornado, mall school and president’s visit
Editor’s note: In addition to speeches by President Barack Obama and Gov. Jay Nixon, Joplin High School’s top students addressed graduates, faculty, parents and other guests packed into the Leggett & Platt Athletic Center on the Missouri Southern State University campus. Following are the text of those speeches.
-
Geoff Caldwell, guest columnist: Pack mentality takes truth as a casualty
President Obama’s Joplin graduation speech Monday showed that while there’s the political “right,” there’s also a very active “rabid” political right.
-
Your View: ‘Study’ can mean anything
A few evenings ago, I watched a television program on the science of marriage.
-
Our View: Support for museum
How can you tell the story of Joplin without the accounts of its mining history?
-
Our View: Finding middle ground
The G-8 summit held last week in Camp David ended as expected.
-
Anson Burlingame, guest columnist: Class of 2012 upholds character, hope
My oldest granddaughter was part of the class of 2012 from Joplin High School, and I attended the ceremony on Monday night.
-
Scott Charton, guest columnist: 'Deadline in Disaster' film a story about storytellers
Local newspapers are at their best when they help their communities confront, understand, endure and overcome shared challenges.
-
Our View: Make voting easiser
This year’s ballot will not include a proposed constitutional amendment that photo identification be required at the polls in Missouri. Good.
- More Opinion Headlines
-
Our View: Victims should come first


