Could nuclear weapons be abolished?
828001
Sure, just like recreational drugs have been.
460531
never, nuclear bombs are outdated technology.  Plus the 21st century will be the start of an era of peace
950388
It would be a waste of bombs. Couldn't we just get big sticks and push it away?
682593
I wish NO country had nuclear weapons.
34015
World peace. Unfortunately that not going to happen. They only thing we can do at this time is just keep a very careful watch. The sad thing is there is no way to destroy them. By deactivating them we just turn them off. They can be reactivated.
846391
I agree that the free world should strike first. Not with a nuclear bomb. We have enough fire  power to reduce Iran to ashes  with in days with out that. But yes we should remove Their nuclear  technology as well as Pakistan's and Indonesia. If Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, or and Muslim country had a nuclear capability of doing us so much harm we  would not recover they would do so today.\nThe free world should give them notice that extremist governments will not be permitted, The freedom of religion must be guaranteed world wide, that no government on earth can be a religious government, and take steps to make it happen. It's now or later and the later will be much worse.\nReligion must be removed from politics, school, and our lives except for in the home and church.\nThere are millions of George Bush type Christains who would vote for a religious Government in the United States to day and chance sending everyone in America to their little hells just to honor "A   G----     D---- Myth".\n\nHow can we eradicate religious wars in other countries when we have so many people here who would have us enslaved under their mythical god.
567302
Not at all...what kind of double standard sh*t is this? we bomb the hell out of iraq and afghanistan with uranium bombs killing civilians, let Israel develop nuclear arms, and yet we don't allow another country develop nuclear power...start looking at this from an international point of view, we are killing people with nuclear arms and yet we banned other countries from developing nuclear technology! so if we want to disarm countries why don't we start with Israel, Korea and China...use common sense this was all planned years ago, then we would go after Syria, Jordan, Russia, this is just pure hypocrisy.
122937
The world will never be safe. Countries will still try to dominate and subjugate one another.\n\nMutual destruction only limits Nuclear action.  There are pleanty of ground wars going on.
252912
I would stop selling weapons. That would prove to the people that the US really wants peace.
433900
No.  But he does need to eliminate their nuclear weapons program.  If other nations do not act by the end of this month than Israel has vowed to do so.
809188
It means less nuclear weapons because we already have a shortage of Uranium in this world and nuclear powers are dismantling nuclear weapons for their energy.  ( uranium inside)
444679
With the rise in power of countries these days, we are lucky all we need to develope are bunker busting weapons.  Many countries have developed nuclear technology since the end of the "cold" war.  I'd be more concerned with the Iranians and North Koreans obtaining nuclear weapons than with the U.S. developing a weapon that could take out nuclear weapons in their silo's.
1101505
200 tridents can ruin most countries' day.  The deterrent factor is what helped turn the tide against the soviet union back in the day.  Keep them until we no longer need them.
683594
The detonation of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that now sit quietly, inconspicuously, in missile silos, submarines and long-range bombers, faithful servants awaiting orders would bring the end of the human species. \n\nThe World Health Organization concludes that 1.1 billion people would be killed outright in such a nuclear war, mainly in the US, Russia, Europe, China and Japan. An additional 1.1 billion people would suffer serious injurles and radiation sickness. This would represent by far the greatest disaster in the history of the human species and, with no other adverse effects, would probably be enough to reduce at least the Northern Hemisphere to a state of prolonged agony and barbarism.\n\nThe nuclear winter that Carl Sagan spoke about would eventually spread to the Southern Hemisphere, killing all plant and animal life, and eventually mankind.\n\nAre nukes good, the MAD doctrine kept us out of a nuclear war for 60 years, but now with rogue states and rogue leaders, the fallacy of the MAD doctrine is apparent.  The weapons of peace for the last 60 years have now been turned to weapons of war.  Once again we are staring into the black abyss of a nuclear holocaust.
933833
there is no need for nukes, our main threat comes from within (al queda cells etc) for which nukes as a means of defence are completely irrelevent
196561
I think that most countries only want nuclear weapons to feel important.  No country will ever use them again.  In fact, I would suggest that the only time they would ever be used is in a terrorist attack.  The world the way it is, any country that tried to use a nuke would find itself up against 195 other countries.  We like stability and launching nukes does not keep the world stable.  \n\nI think that would be an opportunity for the UK to take a leadership role - without being seen as doing what the US tells them to.  They could be one of the first countries to give up nuclear weapons.  That would give them an incredible amount of weight in arguing for disarmament or at least slowing nuclear proliferation.
186267
Do you mean neutralize/liquidate, or remove.....because to remove the country would require eliminating the people that live there....which would be genocidal, and I would not advocate that even hypothetically.