Nothing wrong with redoing START, nuclear waepons are tremendously expensive and by definition, a weapon of last resort and not to be used except under very specific situations.
America did not feel safe when it had over 30,000 deliverable warheads in its arsenal so it stands to reason that if no amount of nukes will provide the desired level of security, you might as well thin out the herd to the greatest extent practical.
That's what this version of START seems like to me, a sensible and entirely rational approach for managing weapons that may be considered essential but are entirely irrational and make no military sense.
|