Every time the situation arises, it brings me back to Albert Einstein’s quote: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

As a child, I was fascinated by war and the military and knew far too much for a youth regarding the subjects; so much so, I first recited that quote in third grade — a friend still mocks me about it. I completely understand the U.S. and Russia need to have their fair share of weapons of mass destruction to remain the nuclear superpowers of the world and to discourage any crazies from attempting to take over the title.

I do think the U.S. and Russia should have a small but substantial stockpile to keep each other and the world in check, but more than 3,000 each is a tad overkill. But I suppose this isn’t Hollywood, and Superman can’t just toss all the nuclear missiles into the sun all at once.

The elimination has to be done incrementally, and this is cutting the two country’s arsenals by one-third. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev likely are doing the most they can — especially with Russia’s hesitations — as long as the U.S. continues to work on missile defense plans.

Obama is working hard to limit the world’s nuclear weapons by reminding world leaders how catastrophic the technology could be if obtained by terrorist organizations. With the recent signing by Obama and Medvedev, the U.S. hosted a 47-nation nuclear security summit, where Mexico and Ukraine vowed to give up their weapons-grade uranium programs. Canada and Chile also are returning enriched uranium to the United States for safe disposal.

The president recently approved new policies for nukes. The plans cut the nuclear arsenal, stop testing and vows not to use nuclear warheads against countries that do not have the same technology. Hopefully, these policies send a message to the rest of the world’s countries who have large amounts of weapons — Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, to name a few ­— and those looking to obtain the technology to take a similar path to the U.S.

I like Obama’s pledge not to attack countries with nuclear weapons if they don’t have them, even if they attack the U.S. conventionally. But I also think that’s almost a moot point at this time.

First, it’s almost unimaginable a country would attack the United States in conventional warfare. It’s also almost unimaginable to see any conventional wars in the future. Even if there are, the U.S. military holds so many technological and strategic advantages against any potential foes that the use of nukes would be pointless.

Afghanistan never has been a conventional war. Iraq was, but only for a fraction of the time since the U.S. has been there. When the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in World War II, the U.S. avoided the loss of millions of more lives, as it negated the need for an invasion of the Japanese islands. At this point, any use of nuclear weapons would be unnecessary and cause a lot of unneeded deaths.

The only real nuclear threat against the world at this point is a terrorist group getting its hands on the technology. And even if they were to use it against the U.S., are we supposed to destroy the country in which they are hiding? Instead, the world should focus on limiting the stockpiles so the potential bad guys can’t get their hands on the catastrophic weapons.

Fewer countries with nuclear weapons and fewer weapons in those countries will mean fewer opportunities for terrorist groups to get their paws on something so destructive that the world could end up at war for a third time on accident.

The United States and Russia should maintain small stockpiles to keep the world in check, but not enough to end the world several times over and create a barren wasteland of an Earth like we’d see in “Mad Max.”

Pat Evans is the State News opinion writer. Reach him at evanspa7@msu.edu.