Perhaps, but many of those with the means would rather the U.S. foot the bill for providing their deterrence.

I’m not a Bushie. I would have preferred McCain in 2000, not because he’s less of a political whore than any of the others, but because he was the least bad choice available. He knows how to work with the other party, he’s held field rank in the Navy, and his temper is a plus in my book. The last president we had with a real anger management problem was Truman, and he wasn’t half bad.

Maybe to wash the plates?

Would this deal ever actually be on the table?

(But we already have “regular refreshing” in ongoing stockpile maintenance. Does this not count?)

Resuming actual nuclear testing and weapon manufacture with the promise that later on we will think about sharply cutting our arsenal would do for non-proliferation what the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and Credit Default Swaps did for a stable financial market.

A key credibility problem that any such proposal would start with are the obligations of the U.S. under Article VI of NNPT:

“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear
disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

Consider the derision heaped on Obama in the U.S. when (for a change) he stated support for nuclear disarmament (at some unspecified and apparently far-off time) to which the U.S. has already formally and legally committed itself (unless it exercises its right of withdrawal). Would outside observers, noting such hostility to what should be a routine (and largely meaningless) bit of pro-forma rhetoric, find a “trust us, we’ll get around to sharp reductions later” promise credible?

What is the likelihood anyone will float this as a package deal: a 90% cut in warheads (including complete dismantlement of all retired weapons and demilitarization of weapons-usable materials) by a fixed date, tied to the resumption of a strict monitored low rate “reliability only” test program, with only test item replacement (like for like) production of new warheads.

If the prospect is “negligible or less” then the premise is in the same class of nuclear weapons policy discussions that start with “Now if we had World Government…”.

If anything, the western states are more egregiously flouting the NPT bargain, than is Iran, or Brazil for that matter.

My views have not changed an iota and I agree with the latest US NIE: no evidence of nuclear weapons development by Iran.

cool?

“Faithful ACW Commentator FSB (Grudgingly) Acknowledges the (Possible) Existence of a (Hypothetical) Military Dimension in Iran’s (Mostly Peaceful) Nuclear Program!”

The Iranian research into nuclear weapons to possibly protect itself (via deterrence) from the other middle east nukes we’ve ok’ed, in case there is an Iranian political decision to actually divert nuclear material?

There is no major problem. Everything is just fine, fear-mongering notwithstanding.