Okay ... and what do you propose ? Presumably the idea is that the US lets go of it's nukes, destroys them, feeds them into nuclear reactors, whatever (assumin

Okay ... and what do you propose ? Presumably the idea is that the US lets go of it's nukes, destroys them, feeds them into nuclear reactors, whatever (assuming that's possible, it'd be "positive"). What happens then ? Well, nothing happens, of course. The main thing that happens is that the US can no longer threaten nuclear strikes, either in retaliation, offensive or to defend itself. This does not affect Russia's nukes. Doesn't affect France's nukes. Doesn't affect NK, Pakistan, India, China, Japan, Israel, ... nukes. But it gives all of these countries a powerful card to play against the US. In fact the pressure behing not using nukes is partially that the US will retaliate if an attack happens on it's allies (a promise that largely benefits European states against Russia, but not exclusively). The inevitable result will be that all these countries will increase the pressure they use against everyone else with nukes. Which of course, only works if they back it with nukes. If at any point someone feels sufficiently pressured to prove their nuke capability ... And remember: the governments of these countries, the people that control the nukes are just as unstable, evil, ... as the US government is. In fact, the consensus is that most are worse. So what is the real alternative to Mutually Assured Destruction ? What would be the consequence of ending it ? Simple: the alternative is oppression, more of it, and a good increase in the chance of war, maybe nuclear war. You can't end MAD by simply demanding it ends, you can only make it worse. You can only end it by proposing something better that is actually backed, something that works economically, something that works militarily, something that works in game theory and negotiation theories.