Should The US Eliminate Its Nuclear Stockpile?

I don’t believe that anybody outside of Syria, Iran, and the North Korean high command actually gets excited about the possibilities of a post nuclear apocalypse. Given the enormous scope of destruction which would incur if nuclear weapons were to be used anywhere in the world today, one would be hard pressed to find a circumstance where any parties involved in the use of nuclear weapons would end up the winner in any fashion. Given these points however, an important question that bears some credence is that important inquiry of what the United States of America has to gain by lowering or eliminating its nuclear weapons stockpile.

There seems to be a huge call today for the elimination of US nuclear weapons, but there seems to be little of interest to the US in such a proposition. It is clear that there are hundreds of these weapons in the world, controlled by various countries that will not give them up or eliminate them. What then does the United States have to gain by reducing its own arsenal of such weapons?

Proponents for nuclear disarmament will say that the United States has far more nuclear weapons than it could ever need. This is true. The US currently possess between four to five thousands nuclear weapons, and does it really make that big of a difference whether you use one thousand or five thousand nuclear weapons to destroy somebody?

Nuclear weapons have historically had three major uses. The first is as an offensive weapon against an opponent, and the second is as a defensive one. Given the high priority placed by the United States on human life today, it is quite unlikely that the United States will ever again use nuclear weapons for either of these first two options, even in the direst of circumstances.

In many circles of “higher learning” today, even the decision by the United States to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has come under the harshest criticism. This condemnation has escalated to the point where it is a widely accepted belief that the United States was wrong in its decision to bomb those cities (even though history clearly shows how thousands and thousands of lives were saved as a result). It appears that, for good or ill, Americans have become far too globally conscious to ever approve of the use of nuclear force.

The bottom line remains however, there is the strong potential of the United States nuclear arsenal serving the third major purpose of nuclear weapons, as a preventative measure against a potential threat. Just as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) functioned during the Cold War, the existence of nuclear weapons in the US can serve a similar purpose.

Realistically, nuclear weapons will never be eradicated from the world. It is far too optimistic to believe that these weapons, scary as they may be, will ever entirely be removed. There are far too many evil people, with evil intent, for weapons of such power to be eliminated.

Therefore, there seems to be little if any advantage to the United States disarming its nuclear weapons stockpile. It also seems a little silly to suggest that the US getting rid of its unnecessary weapons, in order to get Russia to get rid of its unnecessary weapons, really makes the world any safer. Disarmament does not make the opponents of the United States any less dangerous and it doesn’t really make it less likely that a nuclear weapon will be used in the world.