Wow there sqrl, I didn't say it's the U.S.'s fault. Both countries are just looking out for their own security issues. As are countries like Iran and North Korea. If your largest potential enemy is the United States, of course your going to attempt to produce Nuclear weapons.

It just amazes me how the U.S isn't focusing more attention on Nuclear disarmament. They have far more to fear from old Russian Nukes being smuggled in to the states by terrorists than they do from these so called "rogue nations". They could dramatically reduce the chances of an attack on their or other soil, while simultaneously saving them billions of dollars if they made steps to reduce nuclear stockpiles both at home and abroad. 

I wasn't saying you were, I was reacting to the idea that you somehow had the only reasonable response.

so noone has the source for this? theres nothing about it on the news here

Agreed, to a point. No one will get rid of nuclear weapons, but the less nukes floating around the former Soviet Bloc (or Russia itself), the better it is for the United States. Nations won't use nuclear weapons because they're a clear target. You can just nuke them back and turn them into a giant glass parking lot, negating any benefit gained by attacking the United States. A dictator may be crazy but his ultimate goal is to stay in power; annihilate his country and he has nothing left to rule. There's no upside.

It's those damned terrorists you have to worry about... They can strike and hope that no one will catch them. When it's nation vs. nation, that's simply impossible.

I completely agree with the concept behind removing devices that can obliterate mankind, but like Rocketpig points out it isn't very likely if its even possible at all.  Missile defense is certainly not going to prevent all attacks but it definitely defuses the most important types of attacks...the kinds that can hit every major US city and cause a nuclear holocaust.  Sneaking a nuke in and blowing it up is absolutely a threat but its not the massive threat of total anihilation.  I think missile defense is worthwhile and I don't trust any nation that dislikes it.

In regards to dealing with old nukes in Russia, I don't know that we can say they aren't doing those things.  Look at the yellow cake that was removed from Iraq recently, they did that over several years and we only found out about it after the fact.  I find it a little tough to buy that they aren't aware of the situation at the least, but with the way Russia is acting its not very likely that anything will be done soon. 

Honestly I would like to see some people referring to this as Russia's responsibility rather than the US, most of the weapons are in their territory and were owned and operated by their former government.  I'm willing to accept that as a world leader the US has to help out, thats fine, but I don't think we should be constantly tossed out there as the sole owner of the responsibility of cleaning up the old nukes.

all I want for xmas is a satellite laser missile shield.

For the record, I acknowledge we'd never get rid of nukes all together, I was suggesting a reduction in stockpiles.

As for the missile defense shield, I think it's one of the worst policies the U.S. could engage in. They've spent billions on an unproven system that is already sparking a renewed arms race as nations attempt to find countermeasures. If anything it just makes the world (and the United States) a less secure place. why they wish to stir up the nuke pot alludes me. With the exception of the military industrial complex and their lobbyists, nobody benefits from this one.

@ sqrl - Russia is in the process of decommissioning nuclear arms, and the U.S. is helping provide some of the funding to do so. It's just that it's not getting nearly the funding it should, and it's mostly only older weapons, while there are still nuclear subs rusting in ports.  I agree that it's Russia's responsibility, but just like with India, Pakistan, Israel, France, Great Britain, China and the U.S. all countries should be in the business of attempting to reduce stockpiles through diplomacy and co-operation. 

Hm, did I say stof had the only reasonable response or did I say it was the first reasonable response by a mod?

See I don't understand this logic at all, why distrust the people who are developing anti-nuke technologies and not the people who are undoing that work?  If other countries are trying to find countermeasures they are the ones creating the instability not the US. 

The arms race goes back and forth between offense and defense with each technology leapfrogging the other back and forth.  The only logical place to end any arms race is on the defensive side. The people swinging it back to offensive side take the blame in escalation because they necessitate another swing back to defense before it can end.

You'll notice I did bold that part.  The distinction doesn't change the inflamatory nature of the post.  I'll also point out that the post violates forum rule 4-2.  If you have something to add please do, but explain your position instead of just cheerleading.