In times of low income or crushing debt, the obvious thing to do is sell off some less useful assets; as successive Australian governments have been so fond of doing.
Of course, argument inevitably arises as to what assets are 'useful'. Many people have felt that selling profitable businesses like Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank makes as much sense as selling the contractors ute.
So in these times of extreme government debt, what can the USA in particular sell, to get it's books in order?
What does the USA have in abundance, that it can do without? Ironically, John Howard may have pointed the way.
What about a nuclear ordinance buy back scheme?
How much would the people of the world pay, to buy back (for destruction) all the nuclear ordinance in the world?
I know I'd kick the tin for a tenner.

As the North Korean Won moves towards parity with the USD there's bound to be a few more dollars in the kitty, eh?

Seriously though, if I move into an apartment and then after a few wild parties run out of money and can't afford the rent, I'm still the one who has to clean the place up or have the cleaning bill deducted from the bond. Let's not encourage more 'nucular' scare tactics by rewarding the perpetrators. We can't eat it, can't live in it, can't drive it, it's fairly useless stuff except for shooting at other people with.

Surely Alaska is still worth a few renminbi if the Canadians don't want it? 9-)

I'm sure I could find a buyer or two.

Who do you propose they sell them to?

Seano, your point about cleaning up your own mess is valid. However, I think one of the few areas where Capitalism and Democracy truly mesh is in the ability to 'vote' with your dollars.
Every time you spend money on a product, you are effectively voting for that product's survival.
If enough people world wide kicked the tin, it would be a strong indicator of the world's feelings about nuclear weapons -while at the same time easing some financial woes.
As in a free market nothing has intrinsic value, Obama can set any price he likes on his nuclear armaments. In this case, for a democratically elected President who clearly is more interested in popularity than making a profit, the popularity of his 'product' should drive the price down, rather than up.
The more people who want to buy, the more cheaply he should be prepared to sell.
Obviously, the USA would not agree to such a buy back scheme unless all the nuclear powers also jumped on board, but that's OK.
There would also have to be provisos, like the money raised could only be used to pay back debt, not to be spent on more armaments.
To answer Shadow's question, the only viable 'customer' would be the UN, who would have to emplace a transparent monitoring system, to ensure the decommissioning of the armaments, and safe disposal of the radioactive matter.
Perhaps the plutonium could be utilised in power stations? I'm not a fan of nuclear power, but I would much prefer the stuff used for energy than bombs.
My goal is to provide a safer, more affordable world for my children. This notion I think, does both.