Containment of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons is not a viable long-term strategy. Weapons of all types will continue to get cheaper, smaller, and easier to obtain. New types of weapons will be invented. Nanotech has frightening potential to be weaponized. It's folly for anyone to think that he or his associates will be able to maintain a monopoly on the use of any type of weapons.
As a matter of fact, there is evidence to indicate that the policy of containment is contributing to the spread of dangerous weapons. If we leave the countries alone that have them, and harass the countries that do not, why should we be surprised if the countries that do not have these weapons should want them.
You would think the policy makers in Washington DC would know that, and it's possible that they do not, but there is another, darker possibility. Maybe they do, realize that the policy of containment is promoting interest in weapon technology of all kinds, and they just want to sell a lot of weapons.
There may be a parallel with the War on Drugs. A cynic might view the War on Drugs is the most successful advertising and marketing campaign of the last century. The war on drugs has taken something that was fairly cheap with a small market, and made it something outrageously expensive with a huge market. A cynic might also think that a great deal of the proceed from this huge drug market end up in Washington DC.
I see no possibility of a successful policy of containment of weapons of mass destruction based on the threat of being attacked with weapons of mass destruction. If we are serious about limiting the number of weapons of mass destruction, we should get rid of our own as the first step.
It is remarkably similar to a bunch of drunks telling a bunch of hippies they can't smoke pot. I don't see a reason to have enough weapons to kill every person on the face of the earth 1000 times.