A new study from an think tank run by defense contracting giant Northrup Gruman speculates that the U.S. may need to shift to a "nuclear dyad" as opposed to the contemproary "triad" arrangement. 

This is troubling as the report itself indicates that the triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and nuclear capable long-range bombers is appropriate for a robust deterrence stance.  However, as the report indicates, "The triad, the most attractive strategically, is also the most costly in both operating and investment costs..."

Consequently, the report attempted to look at what would be the most economical as opposed to strategically valuable mix of capabilities to assure deterrence.

In an era of proliferating nuclear technology, should we be reducing our deterrent capabilities?  I have been an opponent of the soon, though not yet completely negotiated, successor to START that the Obama team is attempting to negotiate with the Russians for this very reason.

Flexibility is key.  While threats should not be thrown about cavalierly, no option can be arbitrarily removed from the table.  Reducing one piece of a robust mechanism of deterrence, even if it is, relatively speaking, the least necessary, speaks of a willingness to embrace decline. 

As I have written before, this is where the Obama Administration is taking us.  An era where we will be hamstrung by overwhelming demand for domestic spending that forces strategically painful cuts to our military posture.  This is where the potential for chaos or entropy begins.  Others see the potential as well...