U.S. cannot rid world of nuclear weapons

Many peace-loving liberals were overjoyed and commended President Barack Obama on his comments while overseas on his World Tour in regard to reducing and eliminating nuclear arms. While the idea of eliminating nuclear arms is very utopian and sounds good in principle, it is not all that realistic. That is just not how the world works. With Iran and North Korea coming closer and closer every day to obtaining and constructing nuclear arms, the United States cannot afford to downgrade their weapons supplies. Downgrading our nuclear arms cache does nothing but put us in a position of weakness. Other countries will not follow suit. Just because the United States lowers its arms, that doesnâÄôt mean Britain, India, Pakistan and other nations will do the same. We are still in a conflict-oriented world where the only way to ensure peace is to deter other countries from attacking, and that happens by keeping a strong weapons cache. Obama is attempting to neuter AmericaâÄôs strength in an effort to obtain this utopian vision he has of the world which is simply not plausible in the current political climate. Andrew Wagner University student The premise of âÄúBurying Dr. StrangeloveâÄù is faulty. Although it may seem that eliminating the nuclear weapons stockpiles in the world is a worthy goal, analyzing the situation via game theory proves that such is not the case. The major nuclear powers in the world are kept from deployment of nuclear weapons by mutually assured destruction. Since the leaders of large countries know that a nuclear attack would be retaliated against, no nuclear attack will actually occur. This is one of the most famous applications of game theory, and the equilibrium has been mostly stable for the last 50 years. Even during the Cuban missile crisis, no nuclear weapons were deployed. This should be proof that the major nuclear powers in the world are not willing to actually use those weapons. One positive side effect of this nuclear deterrent is that it also prevents smaller countries from using nuclear weapons. A smaller country that has just gained nuclear capability could destroy a city, or possibly several, but then would be annihilated by one of the major nuclear powers in the world. Removing the nuclear deterrent capability of countries such as the United States and Russia would only pave the road for a more dangerous state to use nuclear weapons. There is no way to prevent small countries from developing nuclear potential, but we are capable of keeping the weapons from being used. All of the major nuclear players in the world have been in an equilibrium state of not using their weapons since the early 1950s. Destroying our deterrent capability to avoid major nuclear war would only open us to the more real possibility of smaller nuclear weapons being used by newcomers to the nuclear age. Thanks John Nash âÄî youâÄôve saved more lives than you couldâÄôve possibly imagined. Justin Corcoran University student