The US spends tens of billions of dollars annually on nuclear weapon modernization schemes. Every year, the Pentagon complains it is insufficient, and that continued with StratCom head Admiral Chas Richard, who warned that the US is “almost on a path to disarmament.”
Given how much the US spends, this is a vastly expensive sort of disarmament. Since the US outspends all other nuclear powers, it is hard to imagine that the problem is that the US needs to spend more, and while the admiral suggested the US should “invest smartly,” it’s clear he also wanted more money.
The narrative is that if the US continues at the current heightened level of spending they’ll still end up having to virtually rebuild their entire infrastructure or no longer be a nuclear power. This seems to be overly alarmist, but is just the sort of thing that would sell Congress on bankrolling more arms.
Still, while Strategic Command is built around always spending more money on more arms, and never couches it as an option, it must be considered if proper disarmament is worth considering. After all, if tens of billions of dollars every year can’t maintain an arsenal, the US could at least save that money by no longer pretending to be modernizing it.
The American regime does not accept any form of disarmament, it won’t even talk to Russia about continuation of START.
Not quite so. The real problem is that Trump wants China at the START table, but the U.S. pivot to Asia obviously has China thinking that’s not so wise.
“U.S. renews pressure on China to join nuclear talks” – Steve Holland, Reuters, Fe. 14, 2020.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-china-idUSKBN2082LG
Some argue China is just an excuse to make sure no talks take place, and the U.S. can talk the talk of peace while never having to deal or limit military expansion in either theatre..
“Given how much the US spends, this is a vastly expensive sort of disarmament.”
Ditz just uncovered a whole new area of MIC waste and profiteering no-one ever considered even possible…