Doug, I think the military has established that as their goal. The more likely scenario will be that the deterrence factor would deter an enemy, and best case the nukes would not have to be used. That worked for seventy years or so, didn't it?

Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons, why do we need "precision" nuclear bombs? We missed it by 8 feet but the kill meltdown range is 20 miles.......

Wait, there are 180 American nukes in WESTERN EUROPE? wtf?

There are probably more like 500. If you count the sub fleets and the ones that aren't publicized.

Yeah, these are just the nukes that can be carried by tactical aircraft....... like F-15E or F35B.

Doesn't count the subs that make port there and base off Norway or in the Med. Doesn't count the larger cruise missile types that are carried by heavy bombers.

All this talk of cutting nukes is still far too little. They cost too damn much for zero gain. The Brits and French have the right idea. Just one Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine at sea guarantees the destruction of any enemy.

In regards to upgrading our nukes in Europe, or any other type of defense spending I have a question and some observations:

First an observation - In 2011 we spent $687.1 billion dollars for defense. Russia spent in the neighborhood of 52.6 billion (much less than a tenth of what we spend). Our closest competitor (China) currently spends about $114 billion on their defense (about a seventh of our spending).

Question:

What is the value of defense spending versus other types of federal spending? How much money should a country spend on their defense? Do we, as Americans, need to worry about invading armies? Just how much should be spent on "Perceived Threats"

For our discussion (if you care to follow it); please refer to our Federal Budget for last year:

www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/

Notice that about 1/6 to 1/8 of the total federal budget is spent on Defense spending. Now let's look at a comparison of country-by-country defense spending:

We spend so much money on defense. We own 11 nuclear aircraft carriers (with the new Gerald Ford class to join the fleet soon). We have drones and robots. Tanks galore. F-22's, F-35's, even though most planes throughout the world are still outclassed by the F-15. We have vast desert graveyards that contain miles upon miles of abandoned and obsolete aircraft. We have shipyards around the country filled with perfectly fine, oil-burning Forrestal/Kitty Hawk class carriers. Even if we scrapped all of the military procurements from the past 15 years, the United States probably has enough obsoleted and stored military equipment to conquer the world twice over! Let's not forget that we still have about 10,500 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons stored as well.

How much is enough?

Dwight Eisenhower was a great military commander. One of the few five-star generals that ever existed. He was also known as the Supreme Allied Commander. Later he became President of the United States. When his term as President was up, he cautioned his fellow Americans about the threat from our Military/Industrial complex. He wrote:

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."

Perhaps it's time we recognize that we don't need to be the most dominant force on this planet. For a people who claim to love peace and freedom as much as we do, we sure invest a whole lot of time, effort, and money in figuring out ways to kill anyone we don't like.

Consider these numbers: Among the top 20 military budgets across the entire world (total expenditure between these 20 countries = 1.36 trillion dollars), the United States has the largest budget at 687.1 billion dollars. The number two country by military expenditure is China at 114.3 billion (about 17% of our budget). Between our two budgets (total of 801.4 billion), the United States is carrying 85.7% of the competition.

When we start to compare the top 20 countries (1.36 trillion), the United States is carrying 50.5% of that total expenditure. Let's look at the top 5 military spending countries in the world:

USA = 687.1 billion
China = 114.3 billion
France = 61.3 billion
UK = 57.4 billion
Russia = 52.6 billion
Total = 972.7 billion

USA Share of top 5 spending countries = 70.6%

Someone please tell me why we're outspending every country by this excessive amount? It's not a competition at this point. We're not competing against the Soviets in a cold war scenario anymore. We're not in a World War where our entire economy needs to be on this heavy of a war footing.

Matter of fact. Leading up to World War Two, the United States spent about 1.25% of our GDP on our military budget. This was pretty low; however, when confronted with War, our industrial capabilities and American know-how were able to convert our economy to a war footing very rapidly. (Remember, we were attacked on 12/7/1941 and by August 1945 we were parked in Tokyo Bay accepting the surrender of the Japanese government).

Today, we spend about 5% of our GDP on our military budget. Why? Who is the enemy we've locked horns with? What's the point of a country that claims to love peace and freedom while it arms itself to the teeth? Is there really a credible threat out there that can strip us of our freedom? Think about the size of our country. An invading army here would have the same problem the French and Germans had when they attempted to invade Russia... We're just too big with vast distances separating our east and west coast. Why do we need this much weaponry (other than the fact that this stuff is "cool as hell" to have)?

This is just very strange and weird to me.

And... No. I do love the United States. I did serve in the US Navy aboard the USS Ranger and the USS Kitty Hawk as Soviet Bears flew over our heads as they were escorted away from us by our F-14's. I'm a veteran, I lived through the Cold War, and I understand the need to have a strong military. What I don't understand is why we need to have a Military large enough to take on the next 19 countries in the top 20 list of military budgets simultaneously.

I think it could be a valid argument to say the United States wanders around bristling for a fight, wishing and hoping to use all the hardware and equipment we've spent so much money on. I'd almost say I'd prefer that we just become the big bullies on the block, because if we don't, this is just wasted money.

Think about this... We spent Trillions upon Trillions of dollars building nuclear weapons over the past 70 years. There has been absolutely no return on these expenditures. Sure, you could say that the cost of detente and M.A.D. ensured we were never attacked; however, 100 well aimed nuclear weapons would achieved our policy. How many nuclear weapons did we posses at our peak of production? 32,193 warheads in 1966.

32,193? Who determined that number? What was the point of so many?

Eisenhower was right to caution us. He would have known best as he saw the development and ascension of the Military-Industrial complex through the 1940's and 1950's. This is a self-serving trap our government is entangled with that is just based upon greed and avarice. It enriches the few while bankrupting our country for no apparent good reason.

Some thoughts to consider.

"Bad people"

Do you mean Americans? After all, you invaded Iraq by a pack of lies. You invaded Vietnam with another pack of lies. You massacre civilians in Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Panama, Pakistan, Afghanistan...... The list is a mile long. Your military expediture is 10 times more than the entire world combined. You have over 700 military stations around the world. Talk about terrorism.

Hmmm Iran with 1, One, Uno, 1 Fn nuke and the world is ape@!$%# over this? Now America has 180, ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY nukes in Europe and this is ok? Why isn't Iran or any other country with commonsense going to the UN Security Council demanding action against us, we continue this crap and its allowed but not Iran.. *scratching head*.. .. WHO is more of a threat? Iran or the United States? Iran of course, sorry, I'm just a silly American..

We are of course on a arms race, have been since unarmed people gained the knowledge of arms. They who have the most arms, by a show of hands wins! lol

We have 5000+ nuclear devices around this world. Most on our soil. We are building a new nuclear power plant, something Iran is also doing. Yet our plant is allowed to proceed, with nary a peep from the IAEA or the International Community. Yet Iran, wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes and we are threatening to bomb them into the stone ages again. We are scared of 1 nation gaining 1 nuclear device. How insecure are we as a nation, if with 5000+ nuclear devices are scared of a nation gaining one?

Does anyone else not see the flawed logic we as a nation operate on? We have our own problems here on our soil, yet every president, every year ignores this homeland. When will we focus on rebuilding America and let the world fend for itself? If we continue on the paths we are walking, we are bound to run into a dead end, that turn is coming up in November. Elect Romney and the dead end is WW3 with Iran, Russia and China. Or Elect Obama and maybe we can avoid a war altogether.

More money pissed away on defense against non existing threats... US is the biggest warmonger in the world, spending more money on defense ($1T per year) than the rest of the world combined. Russia spends on defense less than 4% of what we do ($35B per year)

really spaceout

And you'll be begging for our help when the aliens invade :P

Let me further qualify my statements:

I am 49 years old. Through most of my late teens and 20's I considered myself a Reagan Conservative. Though I was too young to vote for Ronny in Nov. 1980 (too young by only a few months), I did vote to reelect him in 1984, and I voted for Bush Sr. in '88 and '92. I was actually quite crushed when Clinton took office as I turned 30 in 1993. It felt like the end of an era.

Unlike most conservatives, I prefer to do my own thinking for myself, and over time things just didn't jive. I watched the infrastructure of our country decline. I watched as special interests always seemed to win out. I watched as the votes of the people could be dismissed by the interests of special lobbying groups (See California State Proposition 187). It's time to face the fact that we ignored the warnings of Dwight Eisenhower. Corporate Interests now hold sway over our state and federal governments. We're no longer in charge! Nothing demonstrates this better than this discussion of upgrading the weapons systems in Europe...

As part of the Marshall Plan, we helped to rebuild Europe after World War 2. Part of this assistance was in the form of shared defense. We created NATO as a counter to the iron curtain that descended over Eastern Europe as a result of the saber rattling from the Soviet Union.

Guys... Right here we need Bush Jr. to fly in on his happy little plane with a "Mission Accomplished" message hanging from the bridge of the carrier he landed on. This is a done and completed deal.

Now they're talking about upgrading? Upgrading what? What for? Why us? Eastern Europe is democratizing. The iron curtain is gone. Russia is a shadow of the former Soviet Empire. Any threats to Europe should be handled by the Europeans themselves. We're coming up on 70 years past World War 2. Time to pick up all our toys and go home.

Period.

Anyone who wants to argue that point, is someone who doesn't have a firm grasp on reality. Most notably: Defense Contractors, Defense Corporations, Defense Lobbyists, and most of the American Midwest and South (Team America... F$%# Yeah... Coming to save, the M$%#@-F#$#@ing Day-Hey...!)

reallyspaceout, I think that "bad people" means "really bad people" like Saddam Hussein, (not Saddam, he's dead, and so are some of these orthers, but people LIKE him) also like Hitler, Stalin, the Red Chinese, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ahmajinidad, Tojo and every other would-be tyrant that wants to enslave the world, or commit genocide. or conquer their neighbors, or oppress their own citizens.

I bet that really spaceout is a Serbian. For sure they see BAD PEOPLE every time they look at a mirror.....

Maybe nobody wants to say publicly that we really just want to have the upgraded systems on hand to deal with some other country when the time comes. Could it be that Europe and Russia are just an excuse?

Do you know what is the world's 2nd biggest economy? The fastest growing economy? The largest population? Have you heard how oppressive the government of that country is? Do you know what the ratio of men to women in that country is? Have you ever heard of Tienamen Square? Do you know what country I'm referring to?

Do you need a hint? Go to Walmart, pick up almost anything off of the shelf. What country was it made in?

Maybe, just maybe, the people running this country are SMARTER THAN YOU! Maybe they do things that look stupid to you because they have MORE INFORMATION than you do. Maybe they are looking ahead far into the future. Maybe you are short-sighted. Ever think of that? Maybe their information (from the CIA) is better than yours (from MSNBC). Maybe they spend a little more time on a problem than you do, trying to find a workable solution. Maybe they know better than to tip their hand. Maybe they are true patriots!

Naaaahhh!

Probably they are all corrupt and just want to waste your money on pork so they can get re-elected and keep getting kickbacks from lobbyists.

Yeah, that's it! That the ticket! Sure!

Believe what you want. I'm going to take a nap.

There are already enough nukes for those jobs.

This is a very good way to spend monies and divert attention from real problems at home!

Really Spaceout must write bumper posters for a profession, and we all know how difficult it is to argue against bumper posters. However, I believe most of us are intellegent enough to not take seriously such overgeneralizations.

Now, if those nukes need upgrading, then upgrade them. America is responsible for its own security and, unfortunately, the security of other nations.

We must not allow Putin - of all people, a true cold war warrior - to manipulate our deterrent capabilities.

And for those who do not believe America has enemies and faces threats, then move out of Xanadu and relocate in the real world.

What allies? Byelorussia? What's left of Yugoslavia? Syria?

Hardly. Russia is not rich, is in demographic decline, and desperately needs to keep selling oil and natural gas at high prices to remain a second-rate power. These days, they're about as much of a danger to NATO as Argentina would be.

Mark, By your estimation, are you advocating a lesser capable nuclear deterrent? Seems to me upgrading the delivery systmes would enhance the idea that the nukes would not have to be fired.

Dasvet, really a deterrent to not be fired? We have 5000+ and that doesn't seem to be working either. Probably more when you count the 4 we gave to Israel. The tools, devices and materials to Pakistan and India to build them as well.

5000:1 seems like a fair fight Dasvet. I am also a vet. US Navy Gulf War era. HM3, Field Medic with the Marines. Honorable Discharge. Now a 100% disabled veteran with the VA.. But I digress, we can't continue to police the world and threaten it. We have used a atomic bomb twice, now will we use an actual nuke? I hope not. Other countries won't either. They know the consequences. One drop and the world goes bananas. We waste billions on "upgrading" and "building" new nuclear weapons for what reason? Again is 5000 or even 5 not enough? 1 is enough. I don't want to see WW3 with Iran, Russia and China, do you? The ramifications of an Iranian invasion is the former. We will be mired in a war with 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 million Chinese people. Can we defend against that without a nuke? Or do we drop that bomb and obliterate an entire people off the planet? Willard "I Did some bad things to gays as a teen, but I didn't know he was gay, nor do I remember that" Romney will start WW3 by invading Iran. He has already stated he'll invade.. Gas will become $12/gallon overnight.

420, I think there is massive savings to be reaped in our weapons systems. Taking one instance and deriving that all nuclear weapons should be banned by the US and no others required to do so, could be very destructive. The gay incident has been de-bunked, check it out. Thanks for your service to this country, even if we disagree. Population-wise, had to have the nuclear systems just because we could not match such a massive populated country without the nuclear weapons. If that country is trying to obliterate our country, then my choice would be to drop the bomb. Truman probably saved millions, and millions of lives by dropping those two bombs because it was shown how awful it could be to attack the US. There is a good chance I would not be here if Truman had not bombed Japan. My Dad was in Europe, getting ready for re-deployment to the orient for a possible invasion of Japan.

Dasvet - My post was really in reference to Russia not really being much of a threat these days, but... If by less capable you mean lesser numbers, then yes. The cold war is over. We won. Do we need tactical nukes in Europe? Sure. Do we need 180 of them? I don't think so.

I say halve the number and modernize those. Then take the savings and either build more ships (we are letting the Navy get too small) and/or fund more specialized troops (say, missile interceptor units).

I'm certainly not anti-defense, but it seems to me that we should deploy forces based on need. The odds of needing more than 90 nukes in-theatre? Zero. Heck, maybe it could even be reduced to 45, but it's never a good policy to make too deep a cut.

They are still nukes, we arent converting more regular bombs into nukes, we are just making them more accurate. While that seems to be a bit idiotic to me, people need to understand that Russia is still a very viable threat in Europe and yes we spend more than any country on defense but we also have more bases and personnel deployed to more places that any other country. And yes, we are still the baddest MF'ers on the planet... MAD discipline.

Bruce, it is more reliable delivery systems. Either way, I don't believe it really matters to Russia.

if there are no more Soviet tanks then why are they worried that a defensive missle shield in Europe will interfere with their Offensive missle abilities?

Because it immediately gives the NATO tanks the ability to do as they please. It isn't status quo, it's an advantage for the West and gives them the ability to impose demands on Russia.

Simple politics.

do no forget Cina , the shield works the same for both countries...

I'd go so far as to say that China, not Iran or Russia, is at the forefront of the military's mind.

Russia will barely exist in 50 years. Maybe you could learn something about this "enemy" before you spout off nonsense.

You could start with learning about the AIDs epidemic, the Heroin/Opium epidemic, the alcoholism epidemic, the domestic abuse epidemic, the absurd stratification of Russian society and the near complete inability of the armed forces to modernize or fight a war against a country 1/100 their size without throwing overwhelming numbers at them.

The death rate is also rapidly outpacing the birth rate in the Motherland with most population growth being from Chinese illegals in Siberia.

Russia is a dead country..... we need to stop wasting money on a beaten foe.

Saff, our birthrate would be the same without the illegal alien baby factories. Are we a dead country? I will answer my own question, yes America is a dead country, if Obama is re-elected.

No our birth rate would be fine. American citizens are replacing dead ones at a decent rate. Russia is literally dying because they aren't having children.

The "Russian Mail-Order" jibe isn't a joke, it's very real. There are no decent men to marry in Russia and the women want out.

Check Dallas's birthrate, nearly half of their new babies are illegals.

I'm sure they are, but that doesn't say much for the rest of the country. Illegals may be the cause of the population boom, but without them "Americans" would continue to have a matching birth rate to death rate.

This is not the case in Russia, where even the massive influx of illegals and their children is not preventing a decline in population.

Naturalized Americans are still having children. Naturalized Russians are not. Russia is a dying country, there won't be any Russians in Russia in 100 years and the country will be something else in 50.

I have read that without the illegal births, the US would not have a birthrate that replaces those lost to death.

What I've read is that without Hispanic births, not necessarily illegal births, we'd have a net mortality rate.

jerry, where is the deterrent factor, if the Russians don't know about the upgrade?

They knew about it before the military strategists on newsvine did.

Gary, You know what's going to happen to your comment, it was not me. Does the company you work for have EAP or Diversity training??

Diversity is responsible for more breakups of countries than any other single cause.

Hasn't been collapsed or deleted yet.
Maybe the hall monitors took a 3 day weekend.

Collapsed posts are the best posts. I read all collapsed posts.

They don't need pinpoint accuracy. Even the smallest tactical nuke has a yield larger than Far Man or Little Boy.

The larger ones that are the ACTUAL NUCLEAR DETERRENT have yields 10 times larger than Fat Man or Little Boy............ and our nukes are smaller than Russian ones.

These are tactical nuclear weapons designed to take out smaller targets and hardened positions. Not ICBM's to be detonated over a city. Accuracy is far more important.

Did you read my comment? An 80 kt yield is twice the size of Hiroshima. You don't need to be accurate within even a mile to hit a Division staging area, or even a battalion at that.

These aren't meant for hard targets, these are for eating up tanks and men pouring over the border. It's a force multiplier.

We apparently never learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis and the so-called "missile gap" of the 1960's. The Soviets and Kruschev were so good at bluffing, that they had us all hiding in our bunkers. At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union actually only had four ICBM's capable of hitting the United States. Out of these four missiles, it is unlikely that more than two would have worked, because of poor guidance systems, horrible command and control and maintenance issues. The U.S. had hundreds of nuclear missiles at the time. There was a missile gap, but we weren't the ones in the hole. It's amazing what you can do with bluster, ruthlessness and an ego bigger than Siberia.

The Defense Troll won't need to be fed if we can't find an enemy to justify his voracious appetite for tax dollars.

1/33 of the DoD budget would send 500,000 students to Stanford for a year.

!/33 of m our welfare budget would send 501,000.3 students to Stanford.

You're going to have to define "Welfare" because the money allocated for actual "Welfare" is very very small.

If you're saying Medicare or Social Security then well, that wouldn't fall under "Welfare".

Dasvet, are you really that stupid? All entitlement programs take up less than 25% of the federal budget, while defense takes up more than twice that. Know the facts, not the lies that Fox News spews!

Social Security and Medicare are NOT welfare programs. We paid for both, or haven't you checked a pay stub lately? We spend 200-300 billion a year housing and providing medical care for illegal aliens, not counting the cost to the American worker in wages lost and reduced hourly pay scale.

Where do I find housing and medical care for illegals in the federal budget?

Oh wait, it isn't in there, so your statement about 1/33 of Welfare sending 501,000.3 students to Stanford is BS, while mine about 1/33 of DoD sending 500,000 is not since mine is based on an actual budget number divided by yearly tuition fees.

Nice try though.

Listen closely, both numbers come from government figures. When all the cost to welfare is totaled up, the figure is astounding, excluding Social Security, and considering Medicade (not paid for Medicare).

Here are some actual numbers to attach to your discussion:

www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/

Defense spending is astronomical! Just the R&D (Research and Development) portion of the Defense Department's budget ($75 billion) dwarfs the entire budget for NASA ($17 billion). We spend 5 times more money on researching new ways to kill people than what we spend on the peaceful exploration of space.

Lunacy!

Consider these numbers: Among the top 20 military budgets across the entire world (total expenditure between these 20 countries = 1.36 trillion dollars), the United States has the largest budget at 687.1 billion dollars. The number two country by military expenditure is China at 114.3 billion (about 17% of our budget). Between our two budgets (total of 801.4 billion), the United States is carrying 85.7% of the competition.

When we start to compare the military budgets of the top 20 countries (1.36 trillion), the United States is carrying 50.5% of this total expenditure. Let's look at the top 5 military spending countries in the world:

USA = 687.1 billion
China = 114.3 billion
France = 61.3 billion
UK = 57.4 billion
Russia = 52.6 billion
Total = 972.7 billion

USA Share of top 5 spending countries = 70.6%

Of the top 5 military spending countries, we're spending not 20% (what should be our share), we're maxing out at 70.6% of this entire total? Why?

Because corporations are getting fat and happy with all the money that's being funneled to them via our government. It's the exact thing that Dwight Eisenhower warned us against as he gave his final speech before leaving the office of President of the United States. He could see what was happening. Unfortunately, his successors either didn't care, or were reaping their own rewards from this arrangement.

Anymore, this is not a country of the people and for the people... This is a corporate entity ran by lobbyists and corporate lawyers that's disguising itself as a free, liberty loving democracy.

The Republicans own at least half of the self destruction. Our system is corrupt; both parties have failed this country, selling out to lobbyists and foreign interests. We need to get the money out of politics, make lobbying a capital offense, and politicians taking money should be considered treason. Any politician taking a job with a company that they passed legislation for should be found guilty of treason and shot.

This country is about 'we, the people', not 'them, with the money'. We need to take this country back!

I always thought the debt climb stated with Reagan, but many people have now told me it was 100% Obama's fault. Geeee I guess I must have been wrong.

swan, that is what MSDNC and the like want you to believe.

No it's all Bush's fault , obama is not responsible for anything.

austerity my @ss, haven't you seen the budget deficit, averaging a one trillion deficit for each of the three years of Obama. Austerity is not the word. BS is the word.

Austerity doesn't work. You have to spend money to get out of a recession. You can't save your way out. Anything that takes money out of the system in an economic crisis causes the market to shrink, not expand. Take a simple Macroeconomics class, and look into Modern Monetary Theory. It's the failed economic programs since Reagan that have caused this mess, including Clinton. We're never going to solve this problem by starving the government out of existence.

Barry, we have proven we cannot spend our way out of bankruptcy in the last few administrations. btw, with your theory, defense spending creates jobs also, so it is not taking money out of the system. Our "failed" economic system is still the target for most of the world, looking for the opportunity to be successful. I will follow your economic policy, I will buy a huge house for which I can't afford the payment. I can always just borrow enough money each month to make up the monthly shortfall on the payment.I can see no problem with that, can you? Did you see the government crowing that April we had a surplus? Nevermind that April is the month we settle up with the IRS, so wait on May/June/July deficit figures come out..

I agree 100%

Canadian, those visits are, and have been a part of Russia's defense system, for many decades. Nuclear tit for tat is better than bodies tit for tat. America does the same.

What's it like living in delusional paranoia? I'm glad fear doesn't drive my life.

You will die someday, no matter what, perhaps you should stop being burdened by worry. You can't control any of it anyway.

I am far less worried when I know that we can and are maintaining our defense capability in good order. Nobody attacks a country because its defense is too strong, just the opposite. That hasn't changed in the last thousand years.

But it won't. Upgrading nukes we don't need will only make it harder to work with the Russians. Instead, we can use it as a bargaining chip to get a missile shield in place.

The B61 that they are upgrading is a free fall bomb that has/can be fitted with better guidance.

Tactical nukes aren't necessary in Europe anymore because there is no threat of a massed Soviet invasion, and NATO is no longer outnumbered.

M1A2, Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and LeClerc tanks outnumber Russian tanks (take away anything that isn't a T80 or T90) and are of better quality. We don't need these bombs to melt 10,000 T-72s coming over the Northern Plain or the Fulda Gap.

These weapons are left overs that need to be disposed of.