Maybe as a kid you had the experience when you proposed doing something that raised questions your parents would say "Well what if everyone went around doing that?" Of course they were implying "That's not such a good idea". But the question does give one pause to consider the feasability and wisdom of proposed action. This line of thinking would have been useful in assessing the argument for preemptive invasion of Iraq to rid it of weapons of mass destruction -- this thread is 3 years too late -- but the concept of preemptive disarmament still raises important questions. Let us assume the US possesses nuclear weapons or WMD. Has the US sworn that it would not use such weapons? Is it in the interest of other nations and peoples to preemptively disarm the United States? What degrees of political, economic and military power do other nations possess? Under what scenarios could other nations individually or in consortium bring about preemptive disarmament of the US by political, economic or military means? What defensive actions should be taken?
To answer one of your questions, the United States has not sworn that it will never use nuclear weapons, but it does have a policy that it will not launch the first-strike with nuclear weapons. With that said, why did you pick the United States? The United States isn't even close to being the world's biggest nuclear offender. That award goes to Pakistan, closely followed by Russia, with North Korea showing third place. The only way I'd want to see the United States disarmed of its WMDs is if every other nation in the world also did the same. Unilateral disarmament would be disastrous.
