A generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States stands at a crossroad. One path leads to a reinvigoration of the nuclear enterprise, while the other promises an end to nuclear weapons. Those that advocate the recapitalization of the nuclear enterprise fall into the "modernizer" camp. They believe that America's nuclear arsenal prevented the United States and Soviet Union from engaging in a large-scale conventional conflict during the Cold War. Deterrence was successful because the consequences of its failure were too terrible to risk. Thus, the modernizers advocate a renewed emphasis on the nuclear enterprise, design of new warheads, and the development of new delivery platforms. For modernizers, capability and credibility are inextricably linked, and both are an important element of deterrence. And, perhaps most importantly, modernizers do not believe that the end of the Cold War fundamentally changed the nature of power, persuasion, and the use of violence. Today, just as during the Cold War, nuclear weapons remain a vital element of US national security. Those advocating that the nation follow a different path are the "abolitionists." Often found in academia, Washington-based lobbying organizations, and the remnants of the peace movement, abolitionists are focused on eliminating nuclear weapons completely. They suggest that these weapons are too destructive and could fall into the hands of someone willing to use them. Thus, the United States must lead the way in their reduction and elimination. As abolitionists suggest, the world will be a safer place without them. This monograph challenges the logic of nuclear abolitionists, addressing each of their arguments and highlighting the flaws. It also suggests that nuclear weapons are as relevant today as they were during the Cold War. They continue to force America's adversaries to move down the spectrum of violence, choosing means that do not present an existential threat to the nation.