Step One: Nuclear Deterrence

Prevention of a massive attack will continue to be based on the policy of mutually assured destruction; its threat is a decreasing possibility. Indeed, since the dawn of the nuclear age in 1945, the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 is the one time we came close to unlimited war. Of course, it only takes one time but for the good of mankind our emphasis must be on elimination of nuclear weapons as opposed to continuing to rely on fear of them as the means to avoid earth's annihilationn. However, until elimination is accomplished, the threat must be accepted.

But let's be real. Given that the U.S. no longer has a superpower adversary, do we really need to spend $40 billion annually on a nuclear force? Do we really need 500 Minuteman missiles, 336 submarine-deployed Trident missiles and a fleet of bombers (already planned to be replaced in 2018 by a new fleet)? Because SALT II failed, some of this weasponry is fitted with mutiple warheards so even after recent cutbacks our total active firepower is still 1,430 megatons. Hiroshima's Little Boy was .013 megaton.

For political and diplomatic as well as financial and humanatarian purposes, an immdiate pledge by the United States to eliminate 50 percent of this arsenal and drop plans for new bombers would not reduce our ability to defend ourselves one bit. It would show the world we are serious about eliminating the possibility of nuclear holocaust and save us billions in the process. And even with half the ballistic missiles, we would have 55,000 times what we used at Hiroshima plus vastly superior systems for delivery.

When the ability to acquire these weapons is gone, and when the materials and information necessary for their production are controlled, the chance that they will be used by terrorists or rogue states will also be virtually gone. Enforcement of the United Nations mandated ban, upgraded intelligence and astute diplomacy would emiminate it completely--Berkley Bedell.