You read something into my statement. I never said we didn’t need a nuclear deterent, I’m only saying that this system, if it exists, will decrease our dependence on a nuclear deterent. Similar destructive force without all the nasty radiation and the international outrage that will follow a nuke strike. We can use it for strikes that would have previously required nukes to be successful.
IMO, reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal sends the wrong message. It makes it clear we are willing to downsize our military. And we are. We have China, Russia, soon to be Iran, most of the Islamic world against us, and Obama wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal to the bare bones. There are still other nations that have nukes today, that might in some instances also wind up being nuclear threats.
While I did miss the "...a lot of..." part of your comment, and that does alter my perception of your post, it still leads me to disagree with your take on this matter.
Thanks for the response.