Ten minutes to write. Less time to read.

Today is Hiroshima Day, the sixty-first anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb in the world’s history. The United States holds the dubious distinction of having been the country that dropped it. And since then politicians, political scientists, professors, and even poets have long debated the value of that event.

I’m not here to add another voice to the chorus; rather, I’m here to express concern about our country’s current arsenal of weaponry. Today seems an appropriate day to do that.

Currently the United States maintains ten thousand nuclear bombs; but, with advances in technology, each of these bombs is the equivalent of fifteen of the bombs that were dropped in Hiroshima and three days later on Nagasaki, Japan. This is not only more than we need; it is enough to demolish the planet, and it costs our government about $17 billion dollars a year.

Those weapons didn’t do a bit of good when terrorists crashed into the World Trade Center; and, given the direction that warfare is going, I’m not sure they can be useful in the future either. This is because we are entering an era of subversive aggression, where battles and counter-battles are not waged according to the standard rules of war. At the same time, I suspect that if we cut our arsenal in half we would still be suitably equipped in the right situation. And the money we would save could go toward education or health or even improving our internal transportation system, all of which are lacking.

Does it make sense to anyone to put more money into improving the quality of life in this country rather than gambling that our way of life will be subjected to bombs the size of those that rained on Hiroshima? I don’t have the answer, but I think we should be raising the question.