The agreement allows each nation a nuclear arsenal of 1,550 warheads, less than before, certainly, but more than enough to destroy the world several times over. Oh, and by the way, the U.S. Constitution requires Senate ratification of all treaties negotiated by the President—a task almost certain to be pushed back by vulnerable senators afraid of causing any kind of heated controversy in an election year. Okay, so the treaty isn’t yet official and it still gives each side plenty of nukes to go around—why bother with this weak semblance of disarmament? Why not find the stones to actually disarm? Well, because we can’t.

It’s true that unless China decides to carpet bomb the White House, it’s highly unlikely that we’ll actually use our nuclear weapons. The moment we do, everyone else will, too—almost guaranteeing humanity’s extinction. No one wants that, so it probably won’t happen, but that doesn’t mean nuclear weapons aren’t important. The Big Five (China, Russia, France, the UK, and the U.S.) are recognized nuclear powers. India and Pakistan both have nukes because each is scared of being attacked by the other. There’s also quite a bit of reason to believe that Israel has the bomb. And personally, I’m not sure I blame them, considering the Iranian president’s declared a yearning to “wipe Israel off the map.”

Throw in Iran and North Korea, accused in recent years of developing nuclear weapons programs, and it becomes clear why we can’t give up our nukes: because no one else will give up theirs. If fanatical people someday came to power in say, Pakistan (which isn’t out of the realm of possibility given its historical inclination towards military coups) and we didn’t have our nukes, what would stop them from trying to blow up Manhattan? In addition, nukes give us more bargaining chips and a bigger seat at the table, because they make us more powerful and make more countries attentive to what we want. Increased power gives us more leverage to negotiate our interests, turning theoretical “soft” power into real, tangible, “hard” power.

As if all of that weren’t enough, there’s a very real incentive to cheat on a total disarmament treaty. If another country has promised to give up all its nuclear weapons, why not keep one or two “just in case?” Of course, once that happens, the treaty loses all meaning and simply reinforces cynicism and animosity between world powers—a result counter-productive to its intended end. Throw in the fact that the breakup of the Soviet Union wasn’t quite perfect, and it becomes a truly ugly picture. One of the byproducts of the messy, chaotic transition was a huge number of missing nuclear warheads that the Russian military to this day cannot account for. The nightmare scenario that is the plot of this season’s “24” addresses the possibility that these warheads might fall into the hands of terrorists. Clearly, our nuclear weapons serve a vital deterrence purpose, scaring off aggression by groups or countries for fear of a much more deadly retaliation.

So total disarmament, while certainly borne of noble intent, isn’t an option, and gradual “we can only destroy the world six times instead of seven” arms reduction doesn’t seem to make sense either. Nuclear weapons seem to be an inevitable fact of today’s balance of power. Then what’s the solution? Beats the hell out of me, but if you can figure it out, send your response to:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, D.C. 20050

I’m sure he’d appreciate the help.