Search results

That is a terrible, terrible analogy!

My figure of 10 wasn't based on any expert analysis, of the actual required number. Perhaps I should have come clean and admitted up front that I'm actually NOT a nuclear armaments specialist? Point still stands, 100%. There is a figure needed to stand as a viable threat / deterrant, and any...

I don't think so. If say, 10 warheads are enough to flatten / poison / elimate from history, the major cities of any country on earth, what are you going to do with any more? If Vlad says he'll reduce to 10, and you follow suit, then subsequently he says, "Sorry, I had my fingers crossed...

Indeed. Why would you need to do that. If we are merely seeking a deterrent, then surely in the mind of Putin, having 'just' his capital city, his government, millions of people, including many of his freinds and family, and hundreds of years of history, is ENOUGH, no?

Apologies if this question is childlike or simplistic, but IF nuclear weapons are purely a deterrent, and IF ONE single warhead is capable of flattening Moscow or Beijing, why do we need to spend billions maintaining 225 of the things??