Then lets keep them, unless of coarse your trying to do something unimportant, like say, saving money or something even less important like trying to build trust.

If there really isn't any difference then between having 2000 and having 7000, why not cut down to 2000, save a little money, and wipe at least 10,000 (between the two nations) nukes off the face of the earth without wiping the face of the earth off the face of the earth with them? --Phoenix Rising

What's going on is: 1)Russia is having trouble maintaining the security of it's nuclear installations (along with a bunch of other things) because of it's persisten economic problems. Cutting the number of it's nuclear warheads way back makes it easier for them to make sure nothing naughty happens. This is no joke and not a minor thing. We are seriously worried that someone may try to sell a warhead, or that some group will manage to steal one. Do you really think OBL hasn't thought of this? 2)We're trying to toss Putin a bone, to make other concessions, on his part, more palatable to his constituencies. This way, he can show his people that he got something from us. 3)We're trying to create the impression in other parts of the world that we're building down, as a tactic in trying to limit proliferation. We're not really worried about 2000 not being enough. In fact, going back to the 1950s, we were perfectly satisfied that we had enough when our strategic arsenal was *way* under 1000. It was under JFK, who came into office on a platform of the "missile gap" that we started to build such amazing numbers. This was never an issue of real military necessity, which was why a couple of hawks with a real grasp of strategic issues, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, were perfectly willing to start the country down the path of strategic arms limitations. We want a real strategic deterrent, which is why we'll not build down to zero, but our real needs, even allowing a real cushion, is far less than 7000. bsl

Most Cold war estimates put the minimum “acceptable” number of warheads needed to kill the Soviet Union (at that time the largest and one of the most spread out infrastructure wise nations) at about 250, with an additional 150 to kill the Warsaw Pact and China. (China is actually an easy target because the vast majority of the population lives in the coastal regions.) So even if we doubled this number of warheads to ensure that the majority (i.e.75-90%) of the world population was eliminated, would bring us up to only 800 total warheads. That is why those that are aware say that the Russians and we can kill the world a couple of times over. An old analogy holds true, if I have a gun to your head, and I take half the bullets out, are you any safer now that the gun pointing at your head only has half a clip? The answer of course is no.

When I tried to come up with a number of warheads below which we'd start to face difficult choices, I was wont to pick 1000. Of course, I did sort of pull that out of the air, but I have never seen any evidence, at all, that we'd have any trouble cutting down to that number without risking our security. "old analogy holds true, if I have a gun to your head, and I take half the bullets out, are you any safer now that the gun pointing at your head only has half a clip?" Probably makes a difference whether you're talking about an automatic or a revolver. ;-) bsl

How true that is but then again if you are using a clip in a revolver maybe you shouldn't be playing with guns. ;-)

It depends-type/means of delivery and/or accurracy. I like having a 20minute delivery time to 80% of the globe for now. It keeps 'homeowners' ie states -honest in the most basic way imaginable. China can reach us with maybe 8. Now, on the overkill side-a lot of attrition was planned for in case we/them were hit first. a force de frappe is only good if you are still packing. As to suitcases and lost warheads= most are probably useless by now due to deterioration/PALs etc,