Nuclear Deterrence
is only effective against
other nuclear weaponized nations

Nuclear Weapons are irrelevant
and useless in most security issues

The US is wasting hundreds of billions on maintaining and improving nuclear weapon systems, as well as adding to the worldwide risk of nuclear weapon use – even though this whole system of nuclear deterrence is completely irrelevant and useless in dealing with present-day military conflicts and serious threats from decentralized terrorist groups.

Weapons for Nuclear Deterrence
are only useful in relation to
other nuclear weaponized nations

Weapons for Nuclear Deterrence, intended for national defense, have some degree of rational merit as a deterrence against being attacked by another nuclear weaponized nation.

However, a Nuclear Deterrence Strategy
has no merit of effectiveness in defending against attacks from non-nuclear nations,
nor from non-state terrorist groups.

For if a non-nuclear nation attacks a NW nation with 'conventional weapons', then there is no justification for using 'nuclear weapons' as a retaliation – and thus, in this 'conventional situation', all of our weapons for nuclear deterrence are completely irrelevant (and a waste of money).

And if a non-state decentralized terrorist group attacks with some sort of destructive weapons or bombs, then nuclear deterrence is also not effective, because the attackers are not simply located in one place that can be bombed. Moreover, many of these potential terrorists groups are unconcerned about our military threats of retaliation since they would willingly die for their cause.

Cyber attacks on our national infrastructure, national intelligence and even on our computerized defense systems are also undeterred by having retaliatory nuclear weapons.

Therefore, a Nuclear Deterrence Strategy [for national defense] is only effective against other nuclear weaponized nations.

Yet, Proponents of Deterrence will then argue that, even though this whole vast and massively expensive deterrence system is only useful in relation to other NW nations, it is still 'necessary' to deter those other NW nations from launching a nuclear attack on us. Well yes, but this whole dynamic –
of nations 'needing' nuclear weapons in order to deter an attack from other nations with nuclear weapons – would not even exist if those nations didn't have nuclear weapons.

The logic involved in all of this is circular.

The Circular Reasoning
for being a NW nation

Since the practical effectiveness of Nuclear Deterrence is only applicable in relation to other nuclear weaponized nations, then the fundamental reason for nations having nuclear weapons is for defense against other nuclear weaponized nations.

But this reasoning is circular and self-perpetuating, because nuclear weaponized nations end up being in their own exclusive club, in which each nation has nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of defending against other nations with nuclear weapons.

In other words, by joining this exclusive club and having nuclear weapons, that nation is suddenly a nuclear threat to the other nuclear nations and therefore a nuclear target. Thus, by being in this nuclear-weapon club, that nation is now a target for being bombed by nuclear weapons, and because it is now a target, it needs a deterrence of nuclear weapons for its national defense.

This is, of course, circular reasoning because, by having an arsenal of nuclear weapons, that nation now requires those weapons for deterrence.

Whereas, if a nation does not join this special club, or if there were no such club, then there would be no 'need' for nuclear weapons.

The Need for Multilateral Negotiations

NW nations need to begin Disarmament Negotiations and cooperatively work out a Bold Practical Plan to expediantly reduce and gradually eliminate all nuclear weapons throughout the world, and this phased plan can include effective verification with international observation.

See...    Better Alternatives for
National Defense & Global Security

Wrong Enemy
the world has changed!

a counter-argument to the enormous spending on maintaining and improving nuclear weapon systems

As a deterrent to possible modern-day attacks on our national security, nuclear weapons are irrelevant and unnecessary.

Nuclear weapons are useless as 'a deterrent' against non-state, decentralized enemies, such as violent extremist and terrorist groups. For them, our new modern day enemies, nuclear weapons and their computerized systems are a gift from the stupid, because having nuclear weapons stored around the world gives them an opportunity to steal one and use it in a city, or computer-hacking terrorists could set off
a nuclear launch by simply triggering the computerized automatic retaliatory system
of a nuclear weaponized nation.

These are our modern day enemies, our modern day security risk – which is a much graver, real and probable risk, than the risk of Russia or China deciding to launch a nuclear attack on the US.

The real threat is not from nations, but rather from non-state enemies, such as terrorist groups or violent extremists, who are decentralized all over the globe and not simply located in one place that can be nuclear bombed. So as far as defending the nation, our very system of nuclear deterrence with its large arsenal of nuclear weapons and extremely expensive delivery systems do nothing to deter a surprise attack those decentralized groups.

The old 50s-60s 'Cold War' is over.
It's time for the US to move on to reality, and stop working to sell the “need” for a trillion dollar per year Military and Weapons Industry, geared against the wrong enemy.

The main concern for Russia and China is economic prosperity and international praise. It is not to somehow attack or conquer America.

We can, trilaterly, cooperate in achieving mutually beneficial goals, such as greater economic prosperity and environmental-climate protection.

So why are we wasting so much money
on the Military and Nuclear Deterrence?

... when none of this is useful in deterring and protecting against our present day enemy, which is violent extremism and fanatical terrorism.

Possessing nuclear weapons does absolutely nothing to keep us safe from terrorist attacks. The policy of deterrence, which justifies having nuclear arsenals, does nothing to win a war against terrorists.

Moreover, the danger to our nation grows dramatically, if these non-state terrorists are able to acquire and use a nuclear weapon. And this possibility is increased by the policies of military states to react to the threats of terrorism in ways that actually recruit more terrorists.

In addition, our possession of nuclear weapons does nothing to win a war on foreign soil, as proven by the fact that the US, the Soviet Union, the UK, France, and China have all lost wars against non-nuclear powers.

Nor, in the event of an actual nuclear war, can any massive quantity of nuclear weapons protect citizens from nuclear harm and massive destruction.

Cyber Warfare
is the new Security Concern

Cyber warfare is a much more relevant and important security concern, than Russia or China attacking us with nuclear weapons.
A Cyber attack is much more likely and of true security concern than a Nuclear attack.

Information on Cyber Warfare

A Recent History of Cyber Attacks
on Government Agencies & Defense

The SolarWinds Hack
a major breach of national security

The SolarWinds Hack was more than one of the most devastating cyber attacks in history. It was a major breach of national security, which revealed gaps in U.S. cyber defenses. According to experts in national defense,
the SolarWinds Hack revealed the following cyber-security problems:

• There are no easy solutions to shoring up U.S. national cyber defenses.

• Software supply chains are vulnerable to hackers.

• Many U.S. companies outsource software development, and some of that outsourcing goes to companies in Eastern Europe that are vulnerable to Russian operatives.

• U.S. cyber defense is split between the Dept of Defense and the Dept of Homeland Security, which leads to gaps in authority.

Why America would not survive
an effective first strike cyberattack

It's time for a Smarter Cyberspace Defense

The Current Delusion
of Cold War Thinking

Our major national security threat is not Russia nor China. These are economic competitors, but they are not real threats to our national security.

The Cold War thinking that Russia and China are military threats to our national security is a disingenuous and false justification for our exaggerated Deterrence Policy – most likely promoted by the US Military-Weapons Industry.

It is simply nonsense to think that Russia or China would attack us with nuclear weapons, if we did not possess thousands of nuclear warheads and super-advanced delivery systems. We are one of the major markets needed in the expanding prosperity of China. So what would be gained from a nuclear attack? Does anyone with any intelligence think that China or Russia would try to militarily conquer the US? You got to be kidding! This fear is ludicrous, it's silly.

And what would be their plans with us, once conquered? Would they think that they could make Americans their servants or slaves?

Any intelligent person would know by now that the only real competition and possible war with China or Russia is in economic trade and technology.

Thus, our present justifications for massive expenditures on our global military and the “need” for newer weapons, as part of the nuclear deterrence policy and agenda, are all based on deterrence in relation to Russia, China, and a few other nations. Yet, there is no rationale or practical reason why any of those nations would launch a nuclear attack on us and try to colonize the American people. That is simply absurd. None of these nations would ever attack us, not ultimately because we have such a powerful, advanced and superior weapon system, but because no other nation, or foreign government, could ever successfully colonize or enslave the American people.

The real fear for our national defense and security are decentralized terrorist or violent extremist groups, who might try to explode a nuclear bomb or somehow fool the nuclear defense system into a false response of retaliation, in order to set forth a state nuclear war and nuclear catastrophe. Our huge and extremely expensive military and nuclear deterrence system can do nothing to defend against these real contemporary threats.

So, wouldn't it be most smart and practical to shift our money away from big military and nuclear deterrence, and move that money into a very less expensive defense system of defeating terrorists and cyber-attacks?

In other words...
Wrong Enemy, Wrong Direction

The Danger of Nuclear Terrorism

In addition to the dangerous risk of an accidental launch of nuclear weapons is the disturbing risk of a terrorist group stealing and detonating a nuclear weapon, or triggering an accidental nuclear launch by breaching computer cyber-security.

A terrorist or violent extremist group could obtain a nuclear bomb and explode it in a city, or an internet hacker could fool a nuclear defense system into a false retaliatory response, in order to set forth a nuclear war and nuclear catastrophe.

And our huge and extremely expensive military and nuclear deterrence system is not geared to deter against these new and real security threats – because having hundreds or thousands of 'retaliatory nuclear weapons' is Not a deterrent against these scattered and decentralized terrorist groups.