Don't need so many nuclear bombs

It seems that some Republicans oppose the president's goal of reducing our nuclear weapons, arguing that it would have a negative impact on our national missile defense program. This view is mad, both in the usual sense and meaning “Mutual Assured Destruction.”

The number of nuclear bombs we have is about one hundred times more than is needed for a credible nuclear deterrent, and a bilateral (or even unilateral) major reduction will make the world safer. While “defense” sounds a better policy than “attack,” in practice destroying incoming nuclear missiles (if anyone was suicidal enough to launch one) is harder than for John Wayne to defend himself by shooting down every incoming bullet. It is easy for an incoming missile to deploy dozens of look-alike decoys; in space simple blow-up balloons travel at the same speed as the missile. If the “defense shield” is not 100 percent effective, the attacker will send more so that at least some get through. And we would certainly know the launch sites from our satellite surveillance.

No, the nuclear dangers today are not ICBMs but a terrorist bomb in a trunk or shipping container, a limited exchange (which could escalate) between two Middle Eastern countries (naming no names), or a 1-in-10,000 chance accident in our 10,000-bomb stockpile. It is time to rein in the military-industrial complex gone wild and put the money back in the pockets of the people.

Michael Albrow

Naperville