A decade and a half after the end of the cold war Russia and the United States still have over ten thousand nuclear devices aimed at each in the kilo and megaton range. Why, since today conventional weapons are more accurate more deadly and pack greater firepower than ever before? To find out the answer check out 'Mission for Nuclear Weapon's After the Cold War" by Ivan Oelrich [link]
In this study, Ivan suggests the speed at which the United States replaces tactical nuclear weapons for conventional weapon, will not reduce the US nuclear arsenal until both Cold War enemies change their 'total disarming first strike' doctrine. These cold war level nuclear tactics has kept these enormous number of nuclear weapons in a stand-off position, costing the United States tax payers close to 8 billion a year, with no clear change in sight.
His observation is a correct assessment of the tactical and strategic doctrines of these Cold War veterans, and why, in the earliest days of the weapons buildup, quantity, deployment and later multiple independent re-entry vehicles, were created to maximize this strategy. It is also why SALT I and II were put in place. However these treaties did not address the military desire for political and military decapitation or the desire for nuclear supremacy, rather it addresses the more dovish desire for a political deterrent.
