I have to take issue with the nuclear strategy stuff; there's really no need for the United States to have as large a stockpile as it has.
Classic deterrence theory says you need to be able to kill 25% of the enemy's population and destroy 50% of its industrial base to prevent him from even thinking about bombing you. Going off that standard, we can deter even Russia, who has thousands of missiles, with only one of our submarines.
Bush is right to get rid of land-based ICBMs like the Peacekeepers; there's no reason to make our land a nuclear target unnecessarily when we can maintain our deterrent force in easily hidden (and almost completely undetectable) submarines.
Ignoring the historical and military logic which required their deployments...as the minimal response to those enemies with war-winning nuclear doctrines. The liberal creed understates the calculus of survivability by quite a bit. Not to mention utility in a shattered post-attack residual arsenal. And it is clear that the MX among other counterforce doctrinal features...prominently Operation Looking Glass... convinced the Soviets they could no longer threaten a war-winning decapitation strike.
When you deal with tyrants such as Iran's, China's and a nascent national fascism getting its feet under it in Russia...you need counterforce...because that is what they value. And while we are dismantling pell-mell.
Meanwhile, the Chinese obtained on a silver platter via their espionage... the necessary scientific and mathematical approach to help them also acquire Synthetic Aperature Radar techniques to detect and track our submerged Trident and attack submarines.
We very literally must not put all our eggs in one basket.