Actually, the analysis is very solicitous of the bureaucratic interests of the military. 311 is arrived at by figuring out how few warheads something close to our current structure could carry. It breaks down to 192 SLBMs on 12 subs with 2 in overhaul, 100 ICBMs and 19 B-2's with one warhead each. In other words, the same submarine fleet we have now, the same nuclear B-2 fleet we have now, and 100 of the 450 ICBMs we have now.

The Op-Ed shows minimal thinking about how many nukes we need to accomplish missions. For reasons McGeorge Bundy illustrates, that number is pretty low. The NRDC ten years ago created a report that estimated we needed about 51 warheads to destroy 25% of Russia's population, and about 368 to destroy 25% of China's population.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/warplan_ch5.pdf
Table is on page 126

A nuclear arsenal of 311 warheads would still be less than Israel's stockpile. Oh wait, I forgot, Israel has never confirmed or denied possessing nuclear weapons.

I'm curious as to how Professors Schaub and Forsyth arrived at 311 as the magic number. And how is this number compatible with preserving and expanding U.S. national interests?

The op-ed is a well-reasoned piece nonetheless; it's very hard to find former military men who are supportive of non-proliferation in the American nuclear arsenal, not to mention those in the military establishment who speak on behalf of weakening the value of nuclear weapons in U.S. national-security policy. The fact that the recommendations are directly contradictory to current thinking in the U.S. Military and Bureaucratic establishment demonstrates how controversial this argument is to people serving in the U.S. Government.

But it's a debate we need, and a viewpoint that I hope academics, practitioners, generals, and politicians embrace further. The bottom line is that the United States has the most sophisticated, well-trained, and technologically superior military in the world (although the military is stretched pretty thin nowadays). Possessing 1,550 nuclear warheads is a figure that is still extraordinarily high, given the the type of world we are living in.

2,000 nuclear weapons may have been useful if conventional warfare and great-power rivalry still dominated the strategic environment (and I say "may" because 2,000 nukes could destroy the planet many times over). But the threats prevalent in the 21st century are much different than the ones the United States and its allies were facing in the 20th. Proxy warfare, terrorism, insurgency, and rogue regimes cannot and will not be contained using weapons-of-mass-destruction. Imagine trying to defeat Al'Qaeda by bombing them into submission....it can't be done. Terrorists are spread out and difficult to track, and counterterrorism can only be implemented successfully through a combination of tools at the state's disposal; domestic law enforcement and intelligence sharing for example.

There are, of course, some downsides to the Schaub and Forsyth argument. 311 nukes is still 311 more than 0. And I suspect that their study won't make much of a difference anyway (Washington hates change, because accepting change requires politicians to accept fault). But the 311-nuke plan is still much better than the alternative...a large and stagnant arsenal that provides other states with a much needed excuse to develop their own nuclear weapons (uh-hum...Iran and North Korea anyone?).

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

It is interesting that Bundy's comment pretty much parallel's the current Chinese ICBM force of some 20 missiles. Assuming that some missiles would always be down for maintenance and repair, they could likely field 15 missiles on any given day. Assigning 1.5 missiles to any given target city (they're almost assuredly counter-value rather than counter-force weapons) means the Chinese could address 10 urban areas on any given day - or a "disaster beyond history" as Bundy says.

They do the math in the op-ed piece.

100 ICBM + 192 SLBMs (8 subs x 24 missiles) +19 B-2s = 311

We've known that we didn't need that many by the late fifties. It was really more of a pissing match with the Soviet Union*.

*That is the perfect description for what it was, I stand by it.

This is an interesting post. To start your argument is long, convoluted and could have been made with a third of the text. Second the entire allegory is poor because statistically* you're actually far more likely to be shot if you own a gun. Admittedly that's probably at least in part due to the fact that people who own guns are current political news more likely to live in dangerous neighborhoods or more likely to have those guns used on them in a domestic fights, but the point still stands.

This is interesting. But it's a debate we need, and a viewpoint that I hope academics, practitioners, generals, and politicians embrace further. The bottom line is that the United States has the most sophisticated, well-trained, and technologically world top news stories superior military in the world (although the military is stretched pretty thin nowadays). Possessing 1,550 nuclear warheads is a figure that is still extraordinarily high, given the the type of world we are living in.

A nuclear arsenal of 311 warheads would still be less than Israel's stockpile. Oh wait, I forgot, Israel has never confirmed or denied possessing nuclear weapons.
govenment jobs