Cannot be done, period, end of story. Disarming in the face of your enemy does hurt national security. Eliminating nuclear weapons can only be done by finding something more powerful.
The only reason our soldiers don't ride into battle on horseback with sabers drawn is that we developed more powerful weapons. Same thing with nuclear weapons. No-one, NO ONE, has ever intentionally, peacefully disarmed. The only way anyone has ever undergone a reduction of arms is involuntarily. Whether it is through armed conflict that they ultimately lose, or economic hardship that eventually reveals their government/economic system as sub-standard (eg. socialism)... That is the only reason anyone has ever disarmed. hussein's dream is insane.
Even if you buy into a totally defensive strategy (which is really, really stupid by the way - as anyone who has studied the matter can tell you), you need an offensive and retaliatory capability to compliment a defensive posture. hussein's dream is stupid, unrealistic, and treason.
I realize that a nuclear weapons free world sounds great. Seems like such a good idea, such an ideal situation. That's the problem with liberals and idealists - they get wrapped up in a grand idealistic vision, that has absolutely no practical way of coming about. No matter how ideal a world without weapons of mass destruction would be, it is never going to happen, never. All you lib lurkers need to wake up and realize that one simple, irrefutable and unalterable fact. There will always be weapons of mass destruction in this world. If we don't have them, someone will be using them against us and/or a lot of other people. End of story. Therefore all your idealism, your wishing/hoping/praying/dreaming it was otherwise is completely futile. What you're wishing for, if we actually did it, would directly result in the death of millions. Now, still want to change things? Are you a psychopath or a realist?
From "45 Communist Goals", as per "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963:
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
'Goals' 4-45 can be found here:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
It sounds vividly stupid.
Reducing nuclear arms provokes China to adventures in the Far East and Latin America. Remember, there are 3000 Chinese operating the Panama Canal on contract. The British used to do that -- get control of chokepoints like Aden, Gibraltar, Singapore, Suez.
Want to mobilize 1.4 billion Chinese? Keep "building down" the U.S. strateigic arsenal -- that is the only thing on God's green earth that their Politburo is afraid of.
Obama will claim that we’re “setting an example”. Even I don’t think he’s that naive. He simply wnat to set out to do what he dreamed of doing as a student. He simply couldn’t care less about the consequences ‘cause he think he (and his ilk) will be insulated from them.
Despite the obvious flaws and dangers of such a policy, there will be lot of Americans who will embrace and celebrate such a policy. Including the vast majority of the MSM. Despite what you hear from them, underneath it all they hate America and themselves.