Ensuring a Future "Nuclear Deterrent"

And the press reports it as the need is merely a matter of opinion.

Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.

Critics say the project could trigger a new arms race with Russia and China, and undercut arguments that countries such as Iran and North Korea must stop their nuclear programs.

See, there’s two sides to the story: Proponents and Critics. Where is the information we need to judge the credibility of each ‘opinion’?

Hmmm, the Proponents are charged with the responsibility for National Defense, the Critics, while no doubt feeling everything, have responsibility for NOTHING.

The Proponents understand old nuclear weapons are a bad thing both from a utility AND reliability point of view. The critics see those points as good things.

The Proponents have been criticized for not paying enough attention to future defense needs (such as China). The Critics pretend China wouldn’t KEEP building its arsenal if we stopped modernizing ours and nukes everywhere would just ‘go away’.

Just two different opinions alright; but only the Proponents’ opinion is grounded in reality.

The Critics need to go back to sucking on their bongs, and leave Defense to the adults.

And the press has to understand we notice things like their use of terms like so-called followed by "scare quotes", i.e., "Nuclear Deterrent".