This is a great article that pretty much encapsulates my views on the wrongheadedness of the entire policy being advanced by President Obama regarding the successor treaty to START.  Here is the most relevant section, though the full piece, courtesy of the Atlantic Council, bears reading,

"The U.S. 2001 Nuclear Posture Review weaned us from tit-for-tat strategic force planning to counter the Soviet Union, later Russia, and adapted strategic planning to a multifaceted and rapidly changing world. Given Russia's belligerent nationalism, China's uncertain future, North Korea's threats to create a "sea of fire," Pakistan's instability and Iran's steady march toward nuclear weaponry, the Obama administration should have thoroughly reviewed likely U.S. requirements before lurching into negotiations with Russia."

Again I ask, what do we really gain except some illusory notion that we are working to establish a "moral highground" from which to negotiate with aspiring nuclear powers? 

Given the new concerns over Burma going nuclear, as unbelievable as that sounds and as early as it is to get too worried yet, it seems proliferation is gaining ground and these token gestures are not only irrelevant, but reduce the one thing we need more of than anything else: maximum flexibility.