Is bilateral ICBM disarmament a good idea and feasible?

[StringJunky]

Quote

Of all weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the ICBM is the one most likely to cause accidental nuclear war, arms-control specialists say. It is for this reason that a growing number of former defence officials, scholars of military strategy and some members of Congress have begun calling for the elimination of ICBMs.

They say that in the event of an apparent enemy attack, a president’s decision to launch must be made so fast that there would not be time to verify the threat. False warnings could arise from human error, malfunctioning early warning satellites or hacking by third parties.

Once launched, America’s current generation of ICBM missiles, the Minuteman III, cannot be recalled: They have no communication equipment because the United States fears on-board gear would be vulnerable to electronic interference by an enemy. Read More: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-nuclear-icbm-specialreport/special-report-nuclear-strategists-call-for-bold-move-scrap-icbm-arsenal-idUKKBN1DM1D1

This is not really a question about nuclear arms and their ethics in general but just ICBM's and the risks associated with them as highlighted in the .article. Do you think Russia and the US could agree to this even though N. Korea is developing them as a possible complication? Are they necessary? I think they are militarily pointless really because everybody knows where they are. I'm talking about the ones that are in silos.

Edited November 23, 2017 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

I believe both the U.S. and Russia will eventually get rid their nuclear arsenals. I think the arsenals are redundant at this point. Without Nuclear weapons would Russia suddenly become an easy nation to invade; of course not. The U.S. can turn any nation on the planet into Swiss Cheese with nuclear weapons. Our (U.S.) stealth bombers can fly from domestically located bases and precision strike any targets anywhere on the planet; autonomously even. Having nuclear weapons isn't keeping the U.S. or Russia save in 2017. As for North Korea I also think they can be persuaded to give up nuclear weapons.  As with the U.S. and Russia it isn't nuclear weapons keeping Kim in power. It is his massive artillery along the border and 6 million man military keeping Kim in power. The main reason the U.S. hasn't gone in and removed the nuclear material is that the size of North Korea's military insures a protracted war which would absolutely spill over into South Korea and Japan.

I see the current state of nuclear weapons as analogous to having cable TV. When I was a kid having cable TV and to what extent (premium channels) said something about the economic status of your family. It was understood those with  HBO had more than those without. As a result many people got it in their heads, as a status symbol and matter of culture) , that cable TV was a must. Today I don't have cable. I have Netflix and the internet but no cable. When discussing TV shows, sports, and what not with people younger than myself the fact that I do not have cable isn't an issue. When I am around people my own age or above the fact that I don't have cable is made an issue of. I have been called cheap, had family members ask if my finances were okay, and etc. To those that have it in their minds that cable is a must; it is a must. Just as people above the age of 60yrs old mostly all still have land lines in their homes. The generation raised during the cold war had it drummed into their heads that having  nuclear weapons makes a country powerful and safe. That adversaries fear nuclear weapons so just having them is a necessary deterrent. That generation will never think it is a good idea to give up nuclear weapons just as my wife's 92yr old grandmother will never give her land line and cable TV. Future generations will feel differently. Those raise during a the war of terror where adversaries are nation less and fear of terrorist getting their hands on existing nuclear material is a greater concern than having nuclear weapons as a deterrent. 

[Vmedvil]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

This is not really a question about nuclear arms and their ethics in general but just ICBM's and the risks associated with them as highlighted in the .article. Do you think Russia and the US could agree to this even though N. Korea is developing them as a possible complication? Are they necessary? I think they are militarily pointless really because everybody knows where they are. I'm talking about the ones that are in silos.

ICBM's and Nuclear weapons in general in 2012-2012 where obsoleted, So I would say that they are very pointless compared to smaller more dangerous things like Synthetic Germ(Synthetic Germs for Modern Warfare)(Genetic Engineering and Biological warfare NBCI)(President of Russia, Putin, mad at US for Bioweapons labs in Europe.) warfare which is banned(UN BWC) but you know is still being done(Most people don't know that), but I think ICBMs are still useful for other purposes such as "Hostile Aliens"(the ones from space) or Mars reheat(Elon Musk Nuke mars to reheat)  if you believe in that sort of thing, but no Nuclear weapons are never used and just waste much money to upkeep viewed as a status thing as Ten oZ suggested up in the planetary governments arena, they flaunt them to loop the other nation into a M.A.D.(Putin Threatens Nuclear War on US.) situation to make them back down. As for Russia and the US agreeing about its disarmament, I highly doubt that(US and RU Relations in 2017).

Note: I have used Russia or specifically Putin for many examples but all sides do this.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Vmedvil