Military personnel observe a nuclear weapons test in Nevada, the United States, in 1951.
Credit: US Government; Credit: US Government
It’s no secret that the United States has a larger stockpile of nuclear weapons than any other country in the world. According to the Arms Control Association, the U.S. had 4,804 nuclear warheads as of September 2013. What’s more, the Congressional Budget Office says that the U.S. will spend $355 billion over the next ten years on nuclear weapons.
Advocates of the proliferation of nuclear weapons say that the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be upgraded, that new weapons should be developed and tested because it’s pointless to be spending billions of dollars every year to maintain a stockpile of weapons that is rusting away. Opponents, like California Senator Diane Feinstein, say that the amount of nukes the U.S. has is far more than is necessary and that the country could be spending that defense money on more important issues like fighting the so-called Islamic State and defending against cyberattacks.
While there have been no recent threats serious enough to elicit even the thought of a nuclear response, the question still remains about what to do with the nearly five thousand nukes that we currently have. Do they need to be upgraded? Should we downsize our nuclear arsenal, and if so, how? Or should they just be forgotten about and left to rust? What are the implications of upgrading our nuclear arsenal? Of downsizing it?
Guests:
Peter Huessy, senior defense consultant at the Air Force Association, President of his own defense company called Geostrategic Analysis, he also teaches nuclear policy at the U.S. Naval Academy
John Isaacs, senior fellow at the Council for a Livable World, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization dedicated to reducing the danger of nuclear weapons and increasing national security