I believe those treaties were signed in times long since past under far different global circumstances.
One job a good president does (and somethig I do not expect sKerry to do) is to review the changing world poilitical scene and make adjustments suited to the ongoing security of the united states. If that means backing out of treaties then it simply must be done. In the age of nuclear weapons, my nations' security is paramount to all other considerations.
The absolute last thing I want is a president listening to the propoganda of people in europe and canada hoping for the poilitcal, economic or military defeat of the united states simply because they hate its elected leaders. Pitifully, there are americans who harbor the same hopes.
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned? yes, maintain and refine them. Improve them and be prepared to use them. No other reason to have them. Deterrance through threat of use is no good if you openly proclaim you will never use nuclear weapons.
In my opinion, and I have thought long about this, if a terrorist deploys and uses a nuclear weapon on american soil then the entire country and the entire population of the country will be at extreme threat of total annihilation if no world changing response is used. Under such circumstances I would hope the CIC would use all means at his or her disposal to rearrange the globe in such a manner as to prevent any second or third attack from ever recurring.
sKerry does not give me any hope that he would do anything of the sort and instead would allow the country to teeter on the brink of destruction in favour of not upsetting the balance of power between europe, asia and north america.
