Well, is it to defend against small, irrelevant third-world countries with a handful of nukes with barely functioning delivery systems, or is it to defend again

Well, is it to defend against small, irrelevant third-world countries with a handful of nukes with barely functioning delivery systems, or is it to defend against large, serious places with serious arsenals? Because these are two very different goals. If North Korea is a bad example for a thought experiment, then you should pick a better example. As for China - surely the U.S. and China could come to a mutual agreement to reduce their nuclear arsenals? It might be worth noting here that China's "rapidly expanding" arsenal clocks in at 350 warheads, while the U.S. has only a meagre 6,185 (barely 17x the size). If America is concerned about large nuclear arsenals, surely they could take the first step or three? > A "no first use" policy is worth less than the paper it would be printed on. In that case, its decision seems even stranger.