Is America's Nuclear Deterrent Obsolete?

During the Cold War, the United States rigorously maintained its nuclear arsenal. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, some have argued the need for such weapons is no longer justified. Recent actions by the Russian Federation call into question this reasoning. Increasingly, Russia has been building up its military at an alarming pace. The United States may still spend more than all other countries combined on military defense but are we really putting that spending into the right areas?

Today, satellite technology makes it possible to target the exact locations of our nuclear missile silos and history has shown that nothing remains secret very long so if any are still hidden, their positions may have already been discovered. Moreover, tactical nuclear weapons can penetrate deep below the surface suggesting that anything stationary is vulnerable. In contrast, Russia moves its ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) regularly to prevent an enemy from taking out its defenses in an attack. With Vladimir Putin recently commenting that he could potentially destroy the United States in a half hour, there would be no time to respond if they waged a preeminent attack on our missile defenses. This leaves only our nuclear submarines, international bases and remnants of undestroyed local capabilities as our only deterrents. Would 12 nuclear powered submarines equipped with multiple warheads on each missile be sufficient against Russia's less updated but vastly superior in number submarines and newer subs capable of attacking even aircrafts? Even more disturbing is that Russia is now building drones to attack our subs. This should be a wake up call to our president and congress but do they really understand how vulnerable we are? Hopefully someone out there reading this could suggest something I'm missing because right now, I'm not feeling very comfortable about our defenses.

See Also: Similar articles listed on http://roberthaskell.blogspot.com/.