re: #399 lawhawk

Wanting nukes gone can be a good thing. How it’s done is the devil in the details that makes all the difference. If you’re talking about bilateral reductions - US and Soviet, that’s one thing - because at the time, the amount of overkill in the US and Soviet arsenals was incredible. Reducing intermediate range missiles and cutting down the number of ICBMs didn’t completely alter the fact that both countries retained the ability to destroy the planet several times over.

What Obama is proposing is reducing our nuclear arsenals to the point where even a rogue nation could launch a first strike that could cripple the US and prevent a response - destroying deterrence, which has been a staple of US strategic thinking since the beginning of the Cold War, and which has prevented nuclear war since. As I’ve pointed out, once nuclear weapons numbers go below a certain point, the idea that a nuclear war is winnable becomes tantalizing, particularly to rogue regimes.

Than we are in complete agreement. We can reduce nukes without going below the numbers we are both concerned about. If we start now, it typically takes decades to get the numbers down, so it’ll be a different POTUS that adjusts the numbers.