I agree with the comment that security at the old Soviet arsenals was a real problem. I use the past tense because there has, in fact, been quite a lot of cooperation between our country and the fragments of the former Soviet Union to improve security. I don't know that the risk has been eliminated, but I'm fairly confident it has been reduced significantly since the breakup. You don't hear a lot about it because it doesn't make splashy headlines, and because security measures are not something you broadcast.

Folks living in Albuquerque during the 90s recall the frequent arrival at Kirtland AFB of large green cargo aircraft with pretty red stars. They weren't bringing in vodka and caviar.

I think Botha could have found some targets if he wanted to. If nothing else, he could have hit some Cuban troop concentrations. But despite some who wanted to fight on, Botha realized that the SA he championed was doomed and tried for as soft a landing as possible (which I think he got).

Like you, I don't see Kim being nearly as reasonable. I'm not sure if he directly would be the biggest threat or if a fanatic involved in an internal power struggle after he goes would be the biggest threat. Part of this is how you view human nature. Can someone function at a level high enough to be in the power struggle be so blinded by Kim's view of the world or does rising to such a level force them to be a little more open eyed? The soviet union certainly argues for the later.

My hope and I think the odds point towards the nukes not being used. But it certainly is a strong argument to me for the development of anti-ballistic missile capability. Yeah, an old soviet empire attack with thousands of missiles and thousands of dummies would have been pretty hard to stop. But my gut tells me that the ability to knock down a few missiles could save a lot of grief at some point in the future. The risk may not be that high, the costs aren't insignificant, but the downside is so bad that its worth the investment.

The only nation I am aware of that went nuclear, then allowed the country to "go under" without using the nukes is South Africa. I suspect that we will see another example, for good or ill, in North Korea within the next decade or so.

If the policy objective is to minimize the chances of terrorists getting nuclear components
it would seem that we should spend a lot more attention to securing the Soviet stockpiles then
preventing Iran from developing a nuclear capacity.

If the main reason nations do not use nuclear weapons is the fear of retaliation why would a state like Iran or Iraq ever provide traceable nuclear materials to a terrorists?

...if we once again see a mushroom cloud rise over one of our cities, there will be a very significant rearrangement of attitudes regarding this matter, in Europe and elsewhere.

So, when do we invade Pakistan?