Could nuclear weapons be abolished?
924121
Wouldn't that be such a Wonderful thing?\n\nShort and to the point...Unfortunately, World leaders will never have that kind of trust with one another.
1119657
bottom line is: we can't change the fact that some countries have nuclear weapons, but if possible we need to prevent more from becoming armed with them,\nLike it or not, the more countries that have nuclear weapons the more likely that some country will use them against their "enemy's"\nIf this should occurs, it may lead others to use their weapons in fear of a nuclear attract,\nResulting in a world wide exchange of nuclear weapons fire!
191176
NO.\nDo you think only the U.S. has nuclear weapons?\nSuch dangerous and irresponsible action would only make\nnon-American world leaders more nervous than Bush has already made them-and many of them also have control of nukes.\n As well,it's only a matter of time before it's possible before some terrorist group has the capacity to make or\nacquire a nuclear device,and I'm sure what you propose would not only accelerate the process but make the most deadly form of retaliation there is inevitable. The world's\nchanged a lot since Hiroshima.\n There has to be another way to handle the Middle East,more\nfinesse than that is required.
641473
The World Wars are over.  Any country with enough military firepower to wage a global-scale war has sense enough to realize that those conflicts will escalate to nuclear conflicts with unacceptable consequences for all concerned.
330604
A couple of issues with your question.\n\nThe US is no longer testing nuclear weapons, and production is limited to what is required to replace older systems that are obsolete (read the SALT-II treaty).\n\nNext, of the countries that currently have nuclear weapons I would say the ones most likely to use them are Pakistan (which would lead to its anihilation) and Russia, out of desperation and impotence.  The chances of the US using nuclear weapons is fantastically small.\n\nThe US, and the UN for that matter (if you come up out of your hate america haze long enough you would realize that France, Germany and the UN are the ones leading the charge against Iran) don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because it seems very likely that they will use them on their neighbors.\n\nBesides, would you give a loaded pistol to a three year old and expect no one to get hurt?  Same idea with Iran.
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.
48208
becausev it would take away from the U,s, status as the only super power . the us wouldnt be the baddest kid on the block if other countries also had these kinds of weapons .
522343
that is possible, if Iran has nuclear weapons we will need the best units to be stealthy and precise to ensure that they are destroyed rather then a whole bunch of regular soldiers knocking on the front door with a machine gun and smoke grenade.
460531
never, nuclear bombs are outdated technology.  Plus the 21st century will be the start of an era of peace
52131
Alright this is the answer to your question. This is pretty obvious if you think about it. If I asked 100 people if they had the capability to end the world with the touch of a button I would probably get one crazy person saying they would do it. Now with that being agreed upon the next transition would be the advancement of technology. In a period of about ten years humans developed the atomic bomb. Ten Years! So my opinion is that humans will develop some sort of weapon whether biological or just a bomb that would be able to destroy the entire planet. This weapon will probably be a closely guarded secret at first, however it let time pass about a couple hundred of years and it would have to leak to one of those 1 in 100 crazy people who would have the resources to release this weapon. He is going to do it and humans are all wiped out. So really as the technology to create WMD's becomes better the worse the human race is. That is why we really need to stop countries with crazy dictators from creating these weapons. This will at the very least slow the process down. But it will happen and its pretty obvious if you think about it.
27880
The U.N. will not be passing any resolutions anytime soon that would involve actual military action against any government or nation anytime soon. I doubt the EU would either since for that organization to pass any resolution that authorizes military force would require a general consensus among its member nations--you can count on them not act in such a way. Also, some member nations would be in the line of fire were Iran to complete its assembly of a nuclear weapon. Thus, considering that fact as well, they would be apprehensive. Thus it would down to us since it is unlikely that other nations would be bold enough to act with force premptively until they are directly threatened or attacked. So would I, right now, support U.S. military action against Iran? No, I would not: I believe our forces are spread too thin right now, domestically and across the globe where they are stationed in other countries. Also, it would be, in general, a bit too hasty to simply invade until we have secured Iraq. In an added note, I would respond to the last part of your question by asking you that if we did invade, why would we not take the time to topple the regime? In the event of an invasion, it would be the wisest choice to do that and not simply to "destroy" or dismantle the nuclear reactor facilities. To leave them in power would be like amputating the finger that has ganggreen, but not sterilizing it completely thus allowing it to fester and grow once more. Another problem with your final annecdote, it would not be so simply just to "destroy" a reactor. Such action would have massively negative reprocusions, i.e. a high civilian casualties. To dismantle it might prove just as tricky and it would surely take time and maintenance by specialists familiar with the workings of nuclear reactors. Additionally, were we to invade (and it is clear that if we did such an action must include toppling the religious-extremist regime as well)--for this reason it would be necessary for us to leave troops stationed their while the next government is installed as in Iraq. So finally, in order to do this most effectively were it to be done, Iraq would have to be secured and our troops pulled out of that region first. Before that happens, our hands are tied even if Rumsfeld or Bush will not admit it: we are chained to the options of diplomacy through the U.N. for now and/or to economic sanctions (which I believe have already been imposed). Logistically speaking, from a man-power and resource perspective, as well as a domestic approval view (whether or not both congress and the american people are in favor on such an action), it would not be in our best interest to take such action. I would not support it at this time.\n\nackerson87@yahoo.com if you would like to continue this discussion or have any other questions we might discuss.
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)
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.
674029
Absolutely NO, the war is over.\n\nEDIT: Not even Iran, there is no reason whatsoever to EVER use an atomic bomb.
1020454
nuclear weapon should be banned all over the world..even in usa
623239
It's called non-proliferation, and it's a good thing.  We don't WANT every nation to have nukes.  It would be BAD. That's like having 10 kids in a room and one has a gun.  Chances are, he won't use it unless he has to.  Now, picture all 20 with guns.  Chances are, one of them is gonna go off half cocked.  Especially with all the fanatics in the world.\nGet it???