Obama Calls For "World Without Nuclear Weapons"

Shortly after North Korea tested their missile (Berman Post: North Korea Fires Missile), Obama called for a world without nuclear weapons.

Without commenting on the incredible impracticability of such a plan, its implementation seems down right foolish. What is the point? The only logical one I can see is to prevent accidental launches. There are better ways to protect against accidental launches, especially when considering the benefits of nuclear weapons.

The most obvious is the deterrent effect. There is a reason that the United States and USSR never got into an open war. It is the same reason that China will not get into an open war with Russia, US, India... . It is because of MAD; anyone fights, everyone loses. Possible related, there has been a severe decrease in world wide deaths from war when comparing the pre-nuclear world to the post nuclear world.

Successfully creating a world without nukes actually has the perverse intensive of increasing the value of the weapons to despots and crazed rulers. It also increases the intensive to logical countries. The United States has the strongest military in the world by far but would be no match to [insert country with pitiful military prowess] that had nuclear weapons if we disarmed ours.

Dismantling our nuclear weapons would actually have more of a destabilizing effect then keeping them would.

More at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20901.html.