Nuclear missiles are not only dangerous, but can pose a threat to every citizen’s safety, which is why it is essential that action is taken to decrease the one thousand, five hundred nuclear warheads that the United States owns and maintains, yet will never use, according to the Arms Control Association (ACA). These warheads are more powerful than those which changed the world, when the United States released two nuclear weapons on Japan. From that day on, nuclear weapons have lived in infamy due to their harsh and unrelenting power, capable of killing millions. Since then, the United States and other countries have competed for the most, and most powerful weapons of mass destruction possible. However, to promote and ensure the safety of Americans, Russians, and people of all walks of life, the gradual deconstruction of the United States Nuclear Arsenal is necessary to create a stable political environment between nations. This would be completed by means of disassembling missile silos and stored bombs across the country, thus leading by example towards a less threatening and more efficient United States.

Today, Russia and the United States both wish to reduce the number of nuclear weapons stockpiled worldwide. According to the ACA, both countries have the two most nuclear weapons and had been decreasing their arsenal up until 2013. Nonetheless, the United States must still continue to reduce their arsenal, tensions have actually decreased since the 50’s and along with it the number of nuclear weapons. This gives another reason for my proposed reduction, foreign relations.

We have already engaged in several feuds with Russia, the arms and space races, and my proposed reduction could put an end to future and past feuds between the two nuclear giants. Both major nations are fully aware that the amount of nuclear weapons currently available would could lead to a nuclear war that would, as the National Catholic Reporter states “destroy the Earth.” Meaning that there is no positive outcome of a nuclear war, nor of having the amount to create such a war. This creates an incentive for Russia and the US to cooperate and work towards lessening warheads. There is a balance to reducing the number of nuclear weapons. This “balance” refers to how many missiles could be disarmed while also ensuring the safety of Americans, however this still reinforces the idea that the current inventory of weapons is unnecessary. A reasonable one-thirds decrease will be enough to maintain the balance, allowing an end to an ongoing feud and a brighter future.

Some will see the nuclear stalemate between the US and Russia as a way to ensure that neither country will use them, due to the likely chance that they too will be destroyed. As put by Ivo Daalder, former Defense Department and White House Official “the United States retains nuclear forces only to prevent nuclear war.” If that is true then the stalemate of the nations is necessary, while the drastic amount weapons is not. First, the current amount of weapons is not needed to maintain the stalemate; only one-third of the current arsenal is needed, as reported by the ACA. This belief also states that these weapons will never be used, thus the missiles are useless and unneeded. Second, the only case where these weapons would potentially be to our aid, is in war. A war with no end in sight, and the only option is to use nuclear force.

The power and danger that nuclear weapons hold is not only an issue, but the overwhelming number of weapons across the world creates a unbearable and catastrophic future. Meanwhile, by disarming a small percentage of missiles over time, the United States could cost effectively keep its citizens safe while promoting a peaceful environment for every nation.