Zim: "The absolute worst thing these United States could do would be to unilaterally de-nuke ourselves."
Who is talking about the US unilaterally de-nuking? (Did I miss something?)
Having Nukes has long meant, and apparently continues to mean, YOU WILL NOT EVER BE INVADED BY MILITARY MEANS. You may be sanctioned (Russia, Iran, N. Korea), you may be infiltrated (US), you may be socially neutered/sterilized with psy-ops (US)...but you will not be militarily invaded.
The evidence is all around you, Zim, that your primary excuse for why the US HAS to continue deficit spending trillions to support foreign military bases and foreign military adventures (to prevent military invasion of the US) is FALSE. At the very least that should give you long reason to pause and question your premise.
Nuclear powers NEVER get physically invaded. At least up until now, that appears as an ironclad rule of the post nuclear age: Iraq, but not N. Korea, etc.
Where do we go these days? Oil. Where do we not go? Possible nukes on missles; we never pursue open warfare there. And neither, by the way, do any of the other military powers.
That is my hypothesis, anyway. And it makes a mountain of sense, explaining a mountain of events...and non events...which your hypothesis utterly fails to address.
| 
