From this strategic calculus, it makes sense to ensure that your weapons actually work (something which can no longer be said of our ICBM and bomber forces). With that in mind, it makes no sense to continue to maintain these obsolescent systems in the face of a changed world. MAD is no longer necessarily the only option. With the advent of increasingly effective missile defense systems, smaller nuclear adversaries can be deterred with the assurance that a launch against any country with a missile defense system would merely ensure the destruction of the missiles themselves (and their country a few hours, days or weeks later, depending on our proclivities toward nuclear retaliation).

Our larger adversaries already have the capability of overcome any defense system, as do we. MAD depends on the ability to effectively retalitate and, from that perspective, it matters not if we have the ability to destroy the world once over or twenty times over. This is why I have no problem with Obama’s planned reduction in our arsenal. It will merely reduce the inventory of older, more unreliable weapons systems in favor of those which can still do massive damage, keeping MAD intact should the doctrine ever become useful again.

Regarding the first point, I doubt very much that any nation on this planet trusts the others enough to believe that, say, and accidental launch isn’t, in fact, a cover for a real strike. Given that most of the nations that have satellite tracking technology sophisticated enough to determine if a launch is truly an unitentional one (i.e. it isn’t being followed up by other simultaneous launches) are either our allies (Britain and France), or at best, wary associates (Russia and China), if one of the latter were not to believe us, we’d all still be massively screwed. At the very least, MAD still keeps the major nuclear powers honest; since we still collectively have enough nukes to sterlize the surface of this planet several times over, it is in all of these nations’ best interests to 1) maintain their nuclear stockpiles as “leverage” against the other nuclear powers; 2) support non-proliferation for the rest of the world, so that the odds of a rogue nation using a nuke to trick the other major powers into an exchange would be fairly low; and 3) do everything within their power to ensure that low-intensity conflicts around the world stay relatively low-intensity, so that no nation ever gets to the point where they feel it is strategically or tactically necessary to use their nukes.

As for the second point, granted, there are some groups out there who don’t have a problem with their own grisly deaths (suicide bombers, for example), I suspect that the vast majority of people on this planet would rather continue existing than not. If we really have become so jaded that we, as a species, don’t much care about our own survival anymore, then perhaps we should be exterminated, hopefully to be replaced with a slightly more optimistic species.

Scientists agree that at least half of all breast cancer is preventable. So, what are we really doing to get the numbers of new cases down? NOT MUCH.

I created the Breast Health & Healing Foundation in 2008 to establish, for the first time, a non-profit breast cancer organization devoted to the understanding of the causes of breast cancer . . and prevention of the disease, THE PURE CURE, as I like to call it.

Please take a look at my website: breasthealthandhealing.org

Many kind regards,

Dr. Kathleen T. Ruddy