There are Better Alternatives
for National Defense

Multilateral Reduction of Weapons
is the best Nuclear Deterrence

Nuclear Deterrence requires ready-to-use arsenals and continual advancements of nuclear weapons, in order to deter other
NW nations from launcing a nuclear attack.

But is this the only (or best) means for nations to reduce the possibility of a nuclear attack?

International Diplomacy and Agreement, rather than military threats of nuclear retaliatory destruction, is a much better way to 'reduce the possibility' of a nuclear attack and avoid a nuclear war.

The most effective national defense strategy
for not being attacked with nuclear weapons
is to multilaterally eliminate them

The use of nuclear weapons, and its consequential mass destruction, is not absolutely deterred by nations having large arsenals of nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems. Whereas, nations not having nuclear weapons is the better deterrence against the use of these weapons.

Since the ultimate goal of nuclear deterrence is to not be bombed by nuclear weapons, then this goal would be better achieved by nations agreeing to not have any nuclear weapons.

In other words, if the ultimate Objective of
a Deterrence Policy (involving hundreds of ready-to-deploy nuclear weapons) is to ensure that they would 'not be used' – then this Objective [of non-use] can be better achieved by nations not having nuclear weapons.

Or, if the Objective of nuclear deterrence is to lessen the probability of incurred destruction from nuclear bombs, then this Objective would be better achieved by nations multilaterally reducing their nuclear weapons, since the less nuclear weapons there are in the world, the less overall destruction is possible, whether that destruction be intentional or accidental.

Therefore, for each NW nation to achieve a safer and more secure world the most effective strategy is Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament – to eliminate, or at least lessen, the potential for being attacked with nuclear weapons and incurring unwanted destruction upon its people and property.

Ultimately, if all nuclear weapons were eliminated in the world, then there would be no 'need' for any nuclear deterrence! For if there were no nuclear weapons, then there 'could never be' any nuclear attacks or nuclear war.

Therefore, having nuclear weapons pointed at other countries is not necessary to deter a nuclear attack or war, because a much easier, much safer, and less-expensive alternative exists – which is for nuclear nations to first reduce and finally eliminate their nuclear weapons.

Thus, nuclear weapons are an unnecessary means towards achieving their intended aim of protecting us from nuclear attack. And in addition, nations having all of these nuclear weapons pointed all over the world 'dangerously increases the possibilities'
of their deployment.

The Best National Defense
is an Advanced System of Diplomacy
not an advanced system of weaponry

Nuclear Deterrence requires arsenals and continual advancements of nuclear weapons by each NW nation, in order to defend against the nuclear weapons of other NW nations.

But is this the only viable and successful means (or best means) for nations to reduce the threat of a nuclear attack?

Certainly there are other viable alternatives to reduce these nuclear threats and avoid nuclear war. But these Alternative Security Systems are diplomatic, not military.

The Need for Multilateral Negotiations

NW nations need to begin Disarmament Negotiations and cooperatively work out a Bold Practical Plan to expediantly reduce and gradually eliminate all nuclear weapons throughout the world, and this phased plan can include effective verification with international observation.

This Disarmanent Plan could even be done with oversight from the United Nations. Each year the UN General Assembly calls for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for negotiating a Global Nuclear Weapon Treaty that would prohibit the threat or use of nuclear weapons and establish a phased program for their complete elimination, under effective international supervision. Yet, this Convention is never implemented, because it is not supported by the major nuclear-armed countries (France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States) and countries under extended nuclear deterrence relationships (NATO members, Australia, Japan and South Korea).

See...
The proposed Nuclear Weapons Convention

Better Uses of the National Budget

The amount of money saved by boldly Reducing the Budget for Nuclear Detterence could then be used to help solve current and more important domestic problems, along with global problems, such as climate change, famine, poverty, water pollution, and diseases.

A Pro-Deterrence argument is:

A world without nuclear weapons
'is impossible'

Their reasoning:

Not all nuclear-weapon nations will give up their weapons, or some might hide their weapons. Therefore, a world threatened by nuclear weapons is an inevitable fact, and thus there is a never-ending need for nuclear deterrence, since a world without nuclear weapons is impossible.

But this is a false assumption.

It is possible to ensure absolute compliance through effective and verifiable inspection measures.

Countries with nuclear weapons can negotiate a step-by-step verifiable elimination of their weapons, and if one country refuses then all other countries could impose absolute sanctions on all economic trade with them, until they eliminate all weapons in cooperation with all the others.

The Logic of Unilateral Reductions

When any nuclear-weapon country reduces their weapons and systems, other weaponized countries will tend to follow with their own reductions, because the less nuclear threats there are in the world, and especially less threats from any current adversaries, then the rest of the NW nations will have less reason to increase or advance their deterrent weapon systems. The 'bar' for credible defense keeps rising as adversarial nations increase their nuclear weapon systems and thus other nations think they must then increase their systems as well. So, reversely, that 'bar' is lowered as any nations unilaterally or multilaterally reduce their weapon systems.

Therefore, the logical step towards global security is not to indulge in an arms race for better and evermore threatening weapons, which only escalates the problem. Instead, gradually de-escalate and reduce nuclear weapons and hi-tech systems; which then also decreases each nation's wasted expenditures on these useless weapon systems.