Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (560157)	4/13/2010 11:00:33 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578168

"but cutting from the higher levels that we had when Reagan was president is a rather different action than cutting now." Not really. Even after this cut, levels will still be far in excess of what could conceivably be needed. The fact of the matter is the number of scenarios where the weapons would even be useful is much smaller than it was in Reagan's day. A massive wall of tanks descending on Central Europe from the USSR is one scenario that is totally off the table now. Any massed tank attack could easily be countered with conventional weapons given that no one could gain air superiority over us. Not even close. Nuclear weapons are not magical talismans. They are devices that have uses and limitations. Over the decades since their development, their limitations have grown. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that.