I don’t think anyone is trying to keep up or out do each other these days…but having SOME kind of nuclear weapons arsenal is definitely a prestige factor for countries like China. I doubt they would want to meaningfully reduce their arsenal at this time as I can’t see any advantages to them for doing so. Russia on the other hand…sure, I can see them wanting too, since their arsenal is in large part a sham. The US would want to reduce ours not so much for monetary value as for political value, especially under Obama.
The times when there is a high risk are precisely the times at which neither side will want to reduce their arsenals. When tensions are low is the time to reduce, so things don’t get as bad if tensions ever rise again.
America ain’t such a fat cat no more. (We spent our principal.) And the problem ain’t the butler; our competitors in your scenario are those nouveau riche arrivistes in the neighborhood, China and India (and more next decade).
To give a perspective on the dangers of arms limitations you have to understand that the popular perception of a nuclear war is way off. It’s not the world-ending, wipe out the human race event it’s cracked up to be. That “we have enough nukes to destroy the world 7 times over” stuff is nonsense.
Both NATO and Warsaw pact forces viewed a nuclear exchange as an opening salvo to a broad war. Most military forces would (ideally) remain intact and functionl and while society would be severely effected it wouldn’t come to a complete halt.
As such, there was a perception that one could win a nuclear war - strike first, disable some of your enemy’s capabilities, have better force protection for your side, and you’ll survive it more intact than they do. Even with the potential massive destruction of our large arsenals, both sides came pretty close (mostly due to misunderstanding and tensions) to making an aggressive move.
Having overwhelming nuclear force in this scenario made nuclear war unappealing and reduced the prospects of winning such a war in a meaningful way. However - the further you reduce stockpiles - the more likely you’ll have a war - the force won’t be quite so overwhelming and the prospect of winning with acceptable losses becomes more palatable.
Think of it this way - if each side only had 10 warheads each, we’d be far more likely to engage in a nuclear war because the destruction, while vast, would be managable, and there’d be a greater chance to disable the counterstrike capability of the other force. In that way, the more nuclear weapons we have, the safer we are - the less likely we’ll have a nuclear war.
OF course, in the current political climate it doesn’t seem as though a war is imminent - and Russia’s degraded ability to secure and maintain their own nukes is dangerous for everyone. So this may very well be a good idea. But it’s not compeltely clear cut - there are definite downsides to arms limitations.
I have NEVER bouht the “MAD” doctrine. Even 10 nuclear bombs are enough to permanently cripple the USA or Russia. Take the USA-you wipe out 10 major cities (LA, NYC, Chicago, Washington, Boston, Baltimore, San Francisco, Philly,Miami, Hartford), and you have wiped out most of the banks, most of the universities, and a good chunk of manufacturing. What ever could b worth risking that?
The Russians are not about to risk that for themselves.
And what happens if you feel like you have a good idea of where those nukes are, can strike first, and are concerned they’re thinking about doing the same thing to you?
Any nation that used nukes would become a pariah. They are risking the destruction of the world as we know it. We skated in Japan because they could not respond in kind, but that is not the case any more. They should be eliminated because they can not be used . They are a waste of money and they are poisoning the environment. We could cut 3/4 of ours and still have enough to destroy the world. It would save us a ton, and gain international peace points. + 3
I doubt Russia would go along with a new nuke reduction at this time, as Obama is going ahead with the missile shield plans. Russia actually has to speed up the construction of missiles rapidly to even maintain the current stock as old ones are retired faster than new ones are produced. That in combination with the US shield, they will soon be out of a good deterrent.
Your observation is correct that nobody has an interest in war, but neither trust the other enough to drop their guard before the other does. A reduction like this might appear like a good deal, but together with the missile shield it will tip the balance a bit much in the US direction, leaving Russia without means of effective retaliation in case of a strike.
