zarf, I've seen this talking point a few times, and I have a question: Without regard to whether or not we should have bunker-busting nukes - how is it "unilaterally disarming" to say you won't continue to develop a weapon that (1) we don't have and (2) no one else has?
We are developing it and development is as good as having it when it comes to the way our enemies behave.
A weapon such as this one is critical to maintaining our qualitative edge into the next century.
(2) no one else has?
This is a counter weapon, it's not an offensive weapon. To give it up (without even a treaty) enhances the offensive capabilities of our opponents.....IMHO that's unilaterally disarming.