# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a father of two young children, I am often perplexed when I hear senior leaders from the Department of Defense speak before civilian and military audiences and say something like, "If I could uninvent nuclear weapons, I would. But since we can't put the genie back in the bottle, we must maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear force."

What makes this statement so perplexing is that creating a world free of nuclear weapons wouldn't ensure my son and daughter live in a world safe from the great power wars that killed eighty million people between 1914 and 1945.

During World War II alone more one million people died per month because of the war.

For those critics of nuclear weapons who argue that the world would be safer if we put the genie back in the bottle, the historical record presents a number of inconvenient truths that they cannot overcome.

Nuclear weapons save lives

Since 1945, nuclear weapons have eliminated great power wars, saving the lives of untold millions. This is because a conflict between nuclear armed states has the potential to escalate to a nuclear conflict. Fortunately, the leaders of nuclear powers are not only unwilling to go to war, but they go to great lengths to constrain their allies and partners from engaging in conflicts that might eventually drag them in a conflict with another nuclear armed state.

The net effect of this risk averse behavior is that there has been an approximately ninety percent reduction in conflict related deaths over the last seven decades. This is not to say that all conflict has disappeared. It has not. What it does mean is that the wars that are fought are on a much smaller scale and are much less costly in blood and treasure. This is very good news for parents like me who would be expected to send their sons and daughters to fight in the next great power war.

Modernizing the nuclear triad is necessary

Nuclear deterrence only works if an adversary believes the other side has the capability and will to use its weapons. For the United States, both have eroded over the past two decades. During the Cold War, the United States replaced its arsenal about every ten to fifteen years.

However, when the Soviet Union collapsed, President George H. W. Bush cancelled the modernization programs that were set to replace both weapons and delivery vehicles designed and fielded in the 1960s and 1970s. Twenty five years later, those same weapon systems are still defending our families and deterring our adversaries.

The problem with our current nuclear arsenal is that it was never designed to last five, six, or seven decades. Not only is the technology outdated, but keeping these weapons functional is becoming increasingly difficult.

What is even more dangerous are the developments taking place in Russia and China where they are, for example, replacing their 1970s era intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with modern ICBMs that are more capable-putting American families at greater risk?

In fact, our adversaries are modernizing every aspect of their nuclear triads. And in the case of Russia, they have a modernized triad which they can use as part of their "first use" policy, which allows for a first strike as part of Russian nuclear doctrine.

Ensuring the continued credibility of deterrence depends on the nation placing the necessary value on nuclear modernization. It is really that simple.

The nuclear arsenal is cheap

Without question, the nuclear arsenal is the most cost effective component of our national defense. Currently, American taxpayers spend about $25 billion per year on nuclear weapons and operations. That is less than five percent of the defense budget and less than half of one percent of the federal budget. At the height of modernization, that cost will rise to seven percent of the defense budget.

When you compare what Americans spend on sovereignty insurance, which is what nuclear weapons are, you will find that they are the most inexpensive form of insurance we can buy. For example, the average American taxpayer spends about $225 per year on the nuclear arsenal (sovereignty insurance), while at the same time they spend an average of about $1325 on auto insurance and $12,000 on health insurance.

What many American do not realize is that the money we spend on the nuclear arsenal allows us to spend less money on national defense and more money on new cars and better healthcare. Because nuclear weapons deter our adversaries from attacking the United States, we are able to redirect our hard earned money to areas that allow us to better take care of our families.

Conclusion

When it comes to nuclear weapons, I am very thankful that they were invented. Neither my father nor I fought the Soviets in World War III. It is my hope that Americans will continue to see the value of nuclear weapons in ensuring peace and will guarantee that we have a nuclear arsenal second to none. I have devoted my life to that mission because I believe it is a crucial way to ensure the safety of my children.
Dr. Adam B. Lowther is the director of the US Air Force's School of Advanced Nuclear Deterrence Studies.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Insider.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 reasons why America's massive nuclear arsenal actually makes the world safer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a father of two young children, I am often perplexed when I hear senior leaders from the Department of Defense speak before civilian and military audiences and say something like, "If I could uninvent nuclear weapons, I would. But since we can't put the genie back in the bottle, we must maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear force."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nuclear Radiation | Effects of Nuclear Weapons | atomicarchive.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear Radiation. The release of radiation is a phenomenon unique to nuclear explosions. There are several kinds of radiation emitted; these types include gamma, neutron, and ionizing radiation, and are emitted not only at the time of detonation (initial radiation) but also for long periods of time afterward (residual radiation).

# data[].attributes.body
As stated in the article, the people who are dropping the nuclear bombshell are extremely experienced and have a lot of training. Because of this, there should be no worry about dropping the bomb in a town or anything because the target will be absolutely perfect.

# data[].attributes.body
There is no chance of people dying from the radiation poising from the bomb because the people that would be exposed are already dead from the bomb itself. But due to the fact that the target will be perfect, those who are dead will only be enemies, rather than normal people.

# data[].attributes.body
All in all, war is terrible. Killing someone with a nuclear bomb is no different than killing someone with a gun. However, the nuclear bomb just makes it easier to wipe out more enemies.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear weapons are extremely efficient in war, and when the clock is ticking and people are dying, efficiency is imperative., giving proper cause to nuclear weapons.

# data[].attributes.body
In this day and age, there are many powerful countries with nuclear weapons, and in order to properly protect ourselves, we must have them because you can never be too cautious with something as serious as war.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear weapons might appear as the night in shining armor that is going to save the entire world from destruction, however, they don't always ensure a victory. In a few scenarios, such as the United States in Vietnam and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the more powerful countries with nuclear weapons did not win, proving that the bombs were not the answer.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear weapons might seem great, but they simply make world leaders irrational. The leaders let the power of the weapons go to their heads and will use the nuclear bombs inappropriately, causing devastating consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear weapons have been made so big that they will cause serious damage if dropped. No matter how small a target is, a whole city is likely to be wiped out if the bomb is dropped.

# data[].attributes.body
Dropping a nuclear weapon would completely destroy fields and crops. Since all food is essentially grown, there would be no way to recover and the entire planet very well may starve.

# data[].attributes.body
The world is already seeing the terrible effects of global warming, but what happens if those effects suddenly, increased drastically? That is how the environment would react if a nuclear bombs were used. The effects are many times worse has global warming.

# data[].attributes.body
There is an extremely fine line between peace and chaos with a nuclear bomb, but I believe the bomb crosses that line. Nuclear bombs are completely unnecessary and were only made because countries such as he Soviet Union and the US because arrogant and felt as though they needed to outdo themselves during the Cold War. Yes, technology is very advanced and countries must protec themselves, but I feel as though in this instance, the risks outweigh the benefits. Human lives and the fate of humanity will be ruined due to nuclear weapons.