Okay your Opponent is making a fallacious argument for the withdrawal of US Strategic nuclear weapons. Because what strategic weapons where there, mostly bombs for the B-52’s, have already been withdrawn. There are still about 150 tactical weapons left, but other then that, the only strategic nukes left are English and French. As for Strategic nukes, they are defined mainly by explosive yield and to a lesser extent by their deliver system. Strategic nukes are what can be termed City Killers normally with a destructive force over 250 kilotons; they can in fact range into the megatons. To put this into perspective the bombs dropped on Japan were about 12-26 kilotons. Deliver systems for Strategic nukes are normally found within what the US terms the triad. This triad consists of Strategic Bombers (B-52, B-1B, and B-2 however I think the B1-B’s have been retrofitted for purely conventional loads.) Missile Subs, (SSBN Ohio Class carrying Trident and Trident 2 SLBMs) and Minuteman 3 and MX ICBMs. The Missiles have anywhere from 3 to 10 warheads capable of independent reentry and targeting. As for their importance, it is four fold: 1. To maintain deterrence i.e. balance of terror, MAD, with any nation that also posses strategic weapons such as Russia or China who might use them against the US mainland. 2. To maintain the ability to deter a nation, which has other WMD, and or Ballistic Missile Capabilities, such as North Korea. 3. As the ultimate defense against a nation or group launching large scale WMD attacks against US forces or Civilians, Such as nation A launches a nuclear device against a Carrier Battle Group or sneaks a “suitcase” tactical nuke into the US. 4. It provides the US with the ability to reach and destroy any nation from the US homeland. As for why the US should not unilaterally swear off Weapons of Mass Destruction, simply put we have no way of ensuring that other nations will do the same, and even if we had signed treaties with the entire world we have no way to ensure that they would live up to them thereby leaving us vulnerable to having them used against us. For example, Russia is notorious for failing to comply with treaties, Iraq is actually a signatory to both the Chemical Weapons and Biological weapons convention, and China and North Korea are the biggest suppliers of Ballistic Missile technology in the world despite signing agreements and making promises not to proliferate such technology. You might want to check out you won’t find the site arguing for the maintaining of WMD, but you will find stuff like this. In the National Security Strategy of the United States, the President has defined the key tasks that must be accomplished: · Maintain robust strategic nuclear forces. · Retain the capability to respond forcefully and effectively and, where appropriate, overwhelmingly, against those who might contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction so that the costs of such use will be seen as outweighing the gains. · Develop improved defensive and offensive capabilities. To minimize the impact of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on our interests, we will need the capability not only to deter their use against either ourselves or our allies and friends but also to successfully operate through WMD use and also, where necessary and feasible, to prevent it. A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. The White House, February 1996, pp. 19-21 Let me know if there is anything else you need. Back in the day, I hated when people would pull BS arguments relying on the ignorance of the judge to prove their cases. Oh here is another site, you would have got to it eventually but I figured I would save you the time. http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/index.html

much agreement but the disagreement is that RANGE and not yield is the US determination of a Stratiegic nuke. ICBM is strategic irrispective of yield, IRBM is creepy and Tac is 'in your face'. Sorry to get technical....so many figures to forget.