Admittedly, nuclear weapons are an anachronism in today’s world of guerrilla warfare and suicide bombing, but they still provide a useful deterrent to rogue states like Iran and North Korea. Nukes are still a psychological goal for any nation trying to achieve a position of military strength and understandably so.
As such, it makes little sense for the U.S. to voluntarily or unilaterally reduce its nuclear arsenal or usage scenarios, if nobody doing the same and if there exists a clear threat to the country. These threats include terrorists getting a hold of nuclear weapons from North Korea, Pakistan or any other unstable nuclear state; China, whose nuclear program and intentions are still unclear; Iran, North Korea and other rogue states; a resurgent Russia; and so on.
The Obama administration has now proclaimed:
the US is ruling out a nuclear response to attacks on America involving biological, chemical or conventional weapons.
… countries will only be spared a US nuclear response if they comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – this does not include Iran and North Korea.
[Tehran and Pyongyang's] continued defiance of international norms and agreements will lead only to their further isolation and increasing international pressure,” the document notes.
Russia, the second most powerful nuclear state, on the other hand, has declared:
Russia will have the right to abandon the Start treaty if a quantitative and qualitative build-up of the US strategic anti-missile potential begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russia’s strategic forces
So, where does that leave us?
