Eliminate nukes? Too late

It's clear President Obama is among those who see the Cold War nuclear standoff as a bad thing.

But it held both superpowers in check and helped stop the spread of Soviet communism.

We certainly empathize with the president's call for a nuclear weapons-free world.

"President Barack Obama said Sunday all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms," reported the Associated Press.

But will they?

Of course not. They couldn't even agree to condemn North Korea's recent missile test. North Korea, Iran and others are seeking nuclear capabilities, and it's difficult to imagine that they, along with every other regime on Earth, would somehow give up that pursuit.

Like it or not, human history has been a story of weapons advancement. Whichever nation or culture managed to obtain superior weapons had the upper hand. They, in turn, could effectively guard their peoples and impose their will on the less well-armed.

How can you put that facet of human history back in the bottle? How can everyone on Earth agree not to seek the next big thing in weaponry?

The answer, obviously, is you can't. So the choices are: either the good and peaceful nations try to maintain the upper hand, and prevent bad actors from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, or they unilaterally disarm and leave their populations vulnerable.

President Obama says he won't do that. But how else can he rid the world of nuclear weapons, as he says he wants to do?

That train has left the station. Weapons are here to stay. The best we can do is to make sure we never have to use them -- mostly by being strong enough to ward off attack -- and to make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands.