So.... how many scenarios that do not entail commies overrunning North America require hundreds of nuclear weapons to respond?
That's right - remarkably few.
Because like every other nuclear power on the Security Council (plus Israel and India, who seem to be pretty responsible chaps as well) the United States would be fucked over for eons if it retaliated a conventional aggression on a level of escalation lower than that of a nuclear attack with a nuke, even the more when the stricken nation doesn't have nukes itself. C.Puffs, you can repeat your mindless gibberish all over again while strutting like a horny peacock but it doesn't change a thing with regards to the military doctrines of the United States of America.
In my humble opinion, a nuclear deterrent is badly needed to keep the madmen in Iran and elsewhere at bay and it should be maintained to prepare for possible geopolitical shifts in the distant future. But anyone who thinks a Russian or Chinese attack on the United States would be a feasible possibility in the near future has clearly played too much Call of Duty. Also since China and Russia are, in fact, reducing systems as we speak I've still not been presented credible reasons why 100 American warheads more or less would actually make a difference.
It's a shame that you don't seem to be interested in a sober debate.
That's making the assumption they aren't affordable. There is no evidence to support that notion. If anything the opposite is true. Also it wouldn't be too bright to throw out your ace-in-the-hole before cutting things that are completely unnecessary to the survival of the country like entitlements.
Soviets thought they were affordable as well.
Dont get me wrong, actually I agree with you on something, I think its fine that the US collapsed in a soviet style so I actually hope more americans, especially these in the leadership, think like you, lol.