In 1962, the world was on the brink of annihilation. Nuclear warheads were being set up in Cuba, and the resulting tensions were pushing the U.S. and Soviet Union toward all-out war.
Mutually Assured Destruction was ready to break down, and only the wills of two leaders kept the worst from happening. The Cuban Missile Crisis, as it came to be known, showed the true power of the technological marvel.
At the time, the thermonuclear weapons acted as a deterrent. Direct engagements like World War 2 were less likely because of the overwhelming destructive ability each side had. Each side knew that if it were to flinch, the world would be rendered a lifeless cinder.
Technology has continually advanced in the following 50 years, but our tactics regarding nuclear weapons has been remarkably similar. We employ what is known as "the Triad." In it's most basic form, the Triad is the use of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear missile submarines, and long-range bombers in conjunction.
Tides and the economy have changed since then, and the prospect of maintaining a massive nuclear arsenal has not been popular. In past years the U.S. and Russia have signed nuclear disarmament treaties like START that significantly reduced our arsenal.
Obama signed a new START agreement with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The new treaty allows for 1,550 weapons, but opponents are arguing that even that is too much. Congressman Ed Markey argued that at least one aspect of the Triad should be eliminated.
Nuke supporters fall back on the stabilization factor. They think that the nuclear warheads guarantee that we can retaliate against any attack. Our opponents know this and that supposedly deters them from attacking.
Yet this shows a complete misunderstanding of the technological might that is our military, and callousness to the death and unbelievable destruction that an atomic weapon causes.
Nukes were so plentiful because of inaccurate guidance systems. At the time, we couldn't be sure if we were going to hit a site, so the bombs needed to be big to guarantee destruction. The more you had, the better chance you had to take out your opponent's weapons.
In effect, we really don't need nuclear weapons anymore to deter our opponents. We have unprecedented precision now, the likes of which were unimaginable to the people of the '60s. We could hit the eye of a sparrow from a world away with a hellfire missile, and not even put a person in harm's way.
This isn't to say we should eliminate our entire nuclear arsenal. It is impossible to predict every possible situation, but having this much devastating power is overkill and unnecessary.
Our economy isn't on its legs yet. The government has big debts and an ongoing deficit, and everyone wants our elected officials to eliminate waste. Defending the golden nuclear cow is an outdated and ugly proposition that all sides of the aisle should consider.
Millions of men and women are out of work, struggling to find a job and we're spending our money maintaining a gigantic death machine.
When normal people are strapped for money, they don't go out buying guns. Our government should think the same way.
