1 I'd like to suggest that Elon Musk, now that he's "retiring" from DOGE, might like to put some of his efforts behind this!

2 Musk ceertainly could help. He could build the infrastructure we need, at a minimum.

3 So we don't have enough nuclear weapons in "the Asian theater." If China invades Tiawan, are we going to start lobbing nuclear weapons? To suggest that we would is moronic. Even more to point is that to be crying that the sky is falling because we can only destroy the world three times over, instead of the six times over that we should be capable of, is stupid beyond comprehension.

4 I complettely disagree Bill.

First, atomic weapons aren't about using them, but rather about having them. They act as a deterrent to aggressive behavior. It is well -documented the Soviets stayed their hand in Europe in the early days after the war because they feared we had more nukes (we didn't; we blew them both up and had no more). The very fact we are under-armed in Asia could well lead to China starting a war there, knowing we can't win.

We used to have 5,000 nukes but may be as low as 1200, and of those many, if not most, of them may well be duds. They are old and poorly serviced. I doubt we can "destroy the world three times over" with this current arsenal. If half failed then we're talking about just six hundred nukes.

I've never beleived that nuclear weapons were going to destroy the whole planet forever as the Left always has claimed. They base it on things like "nuclear winter" and other unsupportable claims.

We know from nuclear tests in the Pacific that the results of nuclear explosions often disappear in just a few years. Johnston Atoll and more importantly Bikini island, for instance, are teeming with life despite the fact we bombed the living daylights out of it for years as it was our primary testing site.  It's still biollogically diverse.

We detonated no fewer than 23 nuclear devices on Bikini, and it's argued at least one more and possible quite a few more.

There is a movement to resettle Bikini. And the U.S. government has a base on Johnston island and has for some time.

The point isn't that nuclear detonations are no big deal; a nuclear war most certainly is, but that it may not be anywhere nearly as bad as advertised.

We have had meteor strikes that have exploded with the energy of many atomic bombs with no ill effects. In 2018, for example, we had one explode with the force of ten Hiroshima-style atomic bombs. Nothing much to see,and little in the way of damage. Granted, they aren't exploding a bunch of highly radioactive material, but the point is certainly the explosive factor is far greater in nature than these bombs and we've lived through many of them.

Granted, I most certainly wouldn't want one landing on my head.

At present, the U.S. government estimates the size of China's nuclear arsenal at 600, with 350 ICBM's. Considerably smaller than ours, but ours are aimed mostly at Russia anyway, and as I pointed out many if not most of ours won't work.

And make no mistake; the Russians will back the Chinese. Both have new, very advanced nuclear weapons while we are still using antiques. It would be like the French in WWI, sending cavalry with soldiers waiving swords in the air as the Germans gunned them down with machine guns.

We really do need a nuclear umbrella to discourage military adventurism. How can we possibly stop China,which could field MILLIONS  of troops and use nukes too? Only if they know for a fact they will be destroyed. Nukes are the only way we could possibly stop China from invading Japan, or even attacking some of our island holdings in the  Pacific, even the Aleutians or Hawaii (that would be harder with our navy, granted.)

Bill, like it or not the U.S.assumed the mantle of world policeman and you can't just get out of it by not playing once you are there. EVERYONE is gunning for you. It's why guys like Wild Bill Hickock were so good with guns in the old West; they had to be because nobody would ever leave them alone. The same holds true of nations.

This is much like what Robert E. Lee said of slavery in the South. He said "It's like holding a wolf by the ears; you don't like it but you don't dare let go." Even if we retreat from our position nations that seek to replace us don't dare just let us leave. We present an existential threat to their rising power.

So we need those weapons, like it or not. Letting them go because we can "blow the world up three times over" is not an optimal solution. We NEED to be able to blow the world up.