Firing of Los Alamos political scientist spurs criticism

"It goes on to argue that nuclear deterrence is not effective and that nuclear weapons should be eliminated for a host of political, military, humanitarian, and environmental reasons."

Not having read the actual(and now classified) article by Doyle, can anyone summarize the "political, military, humanitarian, and environmental reasons"?

EDIT: Whoops here's the original article: http://www.iiss.org/en/publications/survival/sections/2013-9...

Those are interesting bits:

"Maintaining its current arsenal of over 10,000 nuclear warheads costs the United States approximately $31 billion annually."

"Firstly, the force is too big. Without the need to target Russia’s strategic forces there simply are not enough plausible aim-points in the world for US nuclear weapons that would require 1,500–2,000 operationally deployed warheads. For example, in an extreme crisis, perhaps 50–100 nuclear weapons at most would be needed to threaten devastation on Iran, North Korea or China. "

Is anyone surprised that a person publicly advocating a reduction in weapons is unwelcome at a place where a large number of people derive their livelihood from making weapons?

For the record I agree with the guy. We (in the US) spend far too much on military gear and endeavors I think and it is both unnecessary and destructive.

But when you bite the hand that is feeding you and everyone around you.....you can expect to get slapped.

If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, would they still control Crimea? Would there be so many thousands of Russian troops massing outside their borders? Would there be so many Russian special forces operating in their country?

Maybe. But I bet, right now, most leaders in Ukraine wish they still had them.

OTOH, do most ordinary Ukrainian citizens wish their country still had nuclear weapons? Perhaps not.