President Obama has revised the Nuclear Posture Review, defining when it's acceptable for the US to use nuclear weapons. Basically, it says that the US won't use nuclear weapons first against countries that are non-nuclear or countries that are in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That means that there's no change in policy concerning North Korea, Israel, India, or Pakistan. The US won't use nuclear weapons first against almost all countries, that hardly seems unreasonable given 1) the devastating nature of nuclear weapons and 2) the fact that nuclear weapons have only been used twice in all of history. The US accounts for 40% of the worlds defense spending (and defense spending in the US continues to rise under President Obama), so it's ridiculous to argue that America lacks the non-nuclear ability to defend itself. Regardless, we still have thousands of nuclear weapons, the question is whether we should use nuclear weapons to respond to a non-nuclear state using biological weapons. I think it's obvious that we have plenty of levels of response before resorting to the weapons of last resort.
In order to come up with the NPR, one has to begin by finding out the biggest threat that nuclear weapons pose. I think we can all agree that one nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist poses a more real threat than 1500 in the hands of the Russian government. Therefore a strategy that acknowledges that threat is appropriate. The NPR realizes that rogue nuclear weapons pose the greater threat, and it still keeps thousands of weapons “because no Earth is better than an Earth without us” with the promise not to use them first on most nations is perfectly appropriate.
Of course, there's more than one way to look at it. Fox News brings the fair and balanced look by asking innocently and inquisitively “Now critics are asking, will the new deal leave the U.S. defenseless until it's too late?" then cutting to footage of a nuclear bomb exploding into a mushroom cloud.