Nuclear weapons-- Peace through strength

It must be nice living in the fantasy world that Obama lives in:  His push for eliminating nuclear weapons is a good idea in theory, but it won't work too well in practice.

Obama is suffering from the same delusion as some of the scientists on the Manhattan Project did around the time the Trinity test occurred:  He's thinking we can put the genie back in the bottle. We can't.

The notion that we can reduce our stockpile to "hundreds" instead of "thousands" neglects a scientific reality of nuclear weapons:  Time.  The circuits aboard the missile, ranging from navigation to detonation, are subject to the ravages of time.  Given enough time, the nuclear material in the warhead can decay to the point where it is no longer sufficient to produce the critical mass necessary for a nuclear explosion.  That's why major national powers have stockpiles in the thousands:  Some weapons, especially older ones, may not detonate or only detonate as a non-nuclear explosion.

The other consideration is versatility.  One commenter on DU said we could have something like 10 warheads to defend ourselves.  No, not realistically.  Weapon yields vary, depending on whether the weapon is a tactical nuke (intended for battlefield deployment) or a strategic nuke (intended to cause mass destruction and eliminate the enemy's ability and/or will to wage war).

Consider the following scenario:  A rogue state has placed short-range nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons aboard a ship.  When the ship approaches the coast of an American city, it intends to launch.  Intelligence learns of the plot right before the ship comes into weapons range.  A nuclear cruise missile could destroy the target with little or no warning, not giving the ship a chance to launch its payload while at the same time vaporizing that same payload.  A strategic weapon would gross overkill in such a situation, vaporizing not only the ship, but large quantities of seawater.  The radiation would also have a more profoundly damaging effect to the local ecosystem than a smaller tactical nuke.  Finally, strategic weapons are often carried by ICBMs or large bombers, increasing the time the rogue ship would have to launch its payload before destruction.

On the other hand, the same rogue state has built 10 strategic nukes to counter our 10 tactical.  During an exchange, their weapons level our cities, while ours level only a few blocks.

The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction kept the Cold War from boiling over. Both sides stood to lose too much in a conflict.  The guarantee of at best a Pyrrhic victory, at worst the extermination of the human race.  When dealing with emerging and aspiring nuclear powers today, however, MAD doesn't fit:  Religious fanatics are as a rule prepared to die for their beliefs, and when those beliefs include the destruction of Israel, the deaths of thousands if not millions of Americans, and the ultimate goal of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, the possession by those powers of nuclear weapons becomes a frightening prospect.

Mr. Obama has shown time and again he has little or no business acumen.  We first saw with the way his administration took over GM and sought to contradict free-market principles and tell people what kind of car they wanted to drive.  Now, we are seeing it with the way Obama tries to pursue a noble and honorable goal in the midst of dishonorable people.  In any negotiation, the goal is to get as much from your adversary as possible while giving up as little as possible.  What is Iran giving up?  What has North Korea given up?  We gave them light water reactors for a nuclear power program in exchange for them promising not to pursue nuclear weapons.  Instead, history will remember Madeline Albright as someone who foolishly followed in Neville Chamberlain's footsteps.  All indications are that, with regards to nations such as Iran, Obama is ready to follow Albright in the hollow pursuits of appeasement.