It’s just the surrender advocates flexing their so called wimpy muscles.

Why do nutters hate their patron saint Ronnie?

“There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/reagan2.asp

You nutters really need to get your stories straight or canonize John “Plato’s Retreat” Bolton

The cost of national defense should not be at issue – it is one of the few things the Federal government is constitutionally authorized to handle.

The Russians lost the cold war but are still dishonest and double dealing. They can not and should not be trusted. Ah – the fruits of Marxism

Of course the “goal” should be the elimination fo nuclear weapons, then we can all sing cumbya.
In the real world ( non-dumbass liberal shangri la) the next best option is to develop missile defense and neutralize the threat.

Peace through strength and trust but verify – Thanks Ronald Reagan

And you’re going to do exactly what with a few hundred missiles more or less? Really, tell me oh genius. Tell us all what we will do with them. You were certainly in favor of the Republicans doing these treaties way back when I’m sure, in retrospect at least, because back then, you were in what, third grade? Okay, the older cohorts you hang with here, they were in favor of them. Obviously, that Reagan and Bush were doing them made them right somehow, and Obama doing them suddenly makes them wrong.

But, back to the question. Iran sets off ONE nuke. What are you going to do? Fire off 5,500 warheads inside Iranian territory, sending up enough fallout to kill everyone in the entire Middle East, Europe, Asia, and Africa followed by the rest of the planet? No? Is Russia going to suddenly find money in their navels to keep up their decaying nuke inventory? Is France going to turn on us tomorrow and surprise us with 5,000 warheads they don’t have? Is it going to be an alien invasion?

In case you slept through Realpolitik 101 when they went over nuclear arms reduction treaties, they are usually used for good PR while getting rid of warheads they don’t have the money, desire, or both to do upkeep on. Whether or not this is that, we don’t need nearly as many weapons as we have, and there’s no realistic threat in the offing that is going to change that. We can take out most nations’ government overnight with conventional forces alone, and nukes are a weapon no one is going to want to use but for a few crazies we can’t nuke back without killing millions who had nothing to do with them. Disproportionate response is a real concern in a sane world, even if it isn’t in yours.