Just keep in mind that in 1999 they had 12.000 nuclear warheads... it's not easy and cheap to get rid of them..

A few simple reasons:

• Accuracy
• Volume

We have a lot of warheads from decades gone by when nuclear weapons were not accurate. When we hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were actually miles off course. We had to maintain a large stockpile to ensure we actually....Hit the target. Most US/Russian nuclear targets are designated for multiple strikes to ensure an area is decimated. With the advent of more accurate ICBMs and targeting measures, its a bit easier to hit what your aiming for, thus the reduction of stockpiles.

Volume-wise, the ORBAT for nuclear warfare is to hit targets a few times, let some time pass, then strike again when the survivors have come out. I would also mention that not every nuke is a city-buster. There are many in the stockpiles that aren't very large, and are tactical in nature. Finally, one assumes that some of the nukes, in a strike, would be deflected by aircraft, SAMs or other such weaponry.

.

That doesn't mean that I think we need that many. I could see having that many *if* focused on deflecting asteroids and other space objects, but not scorching other countries. The US could probably decimate Russia with 100 modern nukes, if not less. Same goes for Russia.

@MrStick.

Your comments or Hiroshima/Nagasaki don't make that much sense considering they were gravity bombs (as opposed to the warheads currently used) and actually pretty much on target. I think Hiroshima was ~200m out and Nagasaki pretty much dead on?

My bad, Hiroshima was about 900ft (240m) off target, and Nagasaki was about where it needed to be. But from my understanding, most missle-launched systems weren't as accurate requiring more nukes.

You also need to take account that nuclear missiles are very vunerable in early stages of flight so at least russians planned to launch their missiles after american warheads hit. That's why they need this many to ensure that whatever is left will be enough.

We are unsure how long a nuclear warhead is viable due to natural radioactive decay of the warhead. Since we don't test nukes anymore and have to rely on computer simulations, they remake them just to make sure they do go off.

Obviously I didn't mean to imply that there are nuclear weapons stored at the basement of a Walmart store :P

I was thinking in the current context of Obama attempting to reduce a budget deficit. It would seem that any superfluous spending would not be taken. So my point stands that this looks like an accusation that Bush wasn't spending enough.