Let’s hope this latest effort to limit nuclear weapons turns out better than Obama’s gun-control initiatives in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy.  However, there is good reason to believe it won’t, and for much the same reason that the National Rifle Association says gun control is a bad idea: if guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns.  What’s the connection?  I’ll come back to that later, but first let me tell you a little bit about the Obama worldview.

[My comment: If you eliminate your nukes and your enemy cheats, then only your enemy will have nuclear weapons.]

…

Some supporters of nuclear disarmament describe our current approach to nuclear strategy as a failure of imagination that one day could lead to unprecedented catastrophe (proponents of missile defense often say the same thing).  However, it may be that what the Obama Administration has failed to imagine in its strategic calculations is just how bad the global situation might become if Russia’s next leader is a neo-fascist, or China decides to pursue regional hegemony.  There’s no way of knowing for sure when our efforts to shrink the nuclear arsenal cross the invisible line into greater vulnerability, but it may be we are already there today.

Nuclear Weapons: How Few Is Too Few? – Forbes

“There’s no way of knowing for sure when our efforts to shrink the nuclear arsenal cross the invisible line into greater vulnerability, but it may be we are already there today.”

We’ve already crossed the line. Here is the problem: Everybody assumes that our enemies are never willing to absorb one nuclear strike in retaliation. In one retaliatory nuclear strike the enemy’s leaders can survive, but the people take a hit. Would enemy leaders ever accept this?

What if enemy leaders are afraid of revolution? That means if they do nothing then they might die.

What if enemy leaders are afraid of stumbling into a nuclear war with the US? If they do nothing then they might die.

A US that can only retaliate one time might be a tempting target (right now) if given the right excuse. All other options for these leaders might be worse. Yes, their people take a hit, but the leaders will survive. And when was the last time totalitarian leaders put the people before themselves?

Finally, underground bunkers can ensure the survival of militaries and a few million citizens. Also, one might expect that around 90% to 95% of the population will die in a nuclear war. That still leaves 5% to 10% surviving. In China that is still a big number.

The key to preventing this is the ability to retaliate many times over many years. Then the leaders know that they themselves cannot survive.

Do you think that people who just experienced a massive crisis (World War II) just might have more wisdom about national security than a people who have never experienced one?