[myknowledge]

US President Barack Obama (L) shake hands with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev (R) after signing 'New START' treaty reducing long-range nuclear weapons at Prague Castle in Prague, Czech Republic 08 Apr 2010

Defense Sec. Robert Gates (C), Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (R), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen (L) speak about nuclear arms at the Pentagon, 06 Apr 2010

Disarmament of America by design continues, while a Reaganist style rearmament of Russia by design continues.

This definitely has nuclear analysts confounded.

[givemELL]

As one might imagine Yogi Berra saying, “It is so easy to lose your head when you have lost your head.”

[HangnJudge]

The Nuclear Policy brings new meaning to shooting yourself in the foot

[oyez]

I think T. Roosevelt has the best theory. Just maintain that big stick. We don't have to talk about it or make the stick the subject of conversation of offer knowledge of it. We don't brag about the stick or try to impress everybody with it. Its our stick we and we alone will manage the stick. Up to now we have managed our stick rather well.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

I don’t understand why it was necessary to even bring this up; unless it’s yet another piece of misdirection.

[montanajoe]

Having 1500 or 15000 or 150,000 nukes is not going to stop
Al Queda from detonating nukes in multiple US port cities in the not to distant future. It presently costs 6-7 billion a year to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Freeing up a few billion by reducing the arsenal and using that money to focus on the threat posed by terrorists with nukes makes much more sense to me. Also I think it makes more sense to identify and tag the fissionable material currently in existance and make if the policy if a particular country's fissionable material is involved in an attack on the US its the same as an attack by that country and we will retaliate.

[montanajoe]

Having 1500 or 15000 or 150,000 nukes is not going to stop
Al Queda from detonating nukes in multiple US port cities in the not to distant future. It presently costs 6-7 billion a year to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Freeing up a few billion by reducing the arsenal and using that money to focus on the threat posed by terrorists with nukes makes much more sense to me. Also I think it makes more sense to identify and tag the fissionable material currently in existance and make if the policy if a particular country's fissionable material is involved in an attack on the US its the same as an attack by that country and we will retaliate.