Tom said,

By your logic, no small rogue nation should be trying to build nuclear missiles, since there is obviously no rational use for them against vastly superior forces. Yet they do. Feverishly. Why?

***

On the contrary, it's eminently rational. If you are a "rogue" state in the sense that the U.S. -- or any great power -- really, really, doesn't like you, then having a nuclear capability is probably the best way to avoid involuntary regime change being imposed on you by the U.S., the U.N., or whomever. If I were a tinpot dictator, or merely a middle-rank power that wanted to be sure it couldn't be pushed around (e.g., India), I would absolutely want nuclear weapons. I'd have absolutely no intention of using them or proliferating them, but if for whatever reason the U.S. decides they want another guy in charge in my country, well, talk to the missile, Mr. America.

Likewise, back in the 1990s Rumsfeld was pushing missile defense on exactly these grounds -- a North Korean bolt-from-the-blue was unlikely, he acknowledged, but the U.S. needed to have a missile defense system in order to preserve its _offensive_ options against other nations. He doesn't emphasise that angle as much now that he's in govt.