Nuclear weapons. Yay or nay

They were wrong quite simply because it was never going to be achievable…

Nuclear weapons experts estimate that the world’s known nine nuclear states who are China, France, India, *Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States between them have around 13,000 nuclear warheads in total… that’s ‘known’ nuclear states…

who disarms first ?

*Israel have dozens of nuclear weapons but don’t officially admit to being a nuclear power…they are known as it’s an open secret.

can you imagine that shîtshow of a negotiation ? Trying to get all the above to disarm ?

never happening would be my thinking….

Having nuclear weapons would be an excellent deterrent from been invaded, if Ukraine had these weapons there would be no invasion, same for Libya's Gaddafi.

I remember at the start of the Ukraine invasion, Putin made a clear threat that if the west got involved he would use them. So they are not only a defensive weapon.

Its only resonable now that more countries have them, as you cant rely on your friends to defend you, the Budapest Memorandum isnt worth the paper its written on.

And unfotunately if more countries have them, then there is more likelihood of a nuclear war.

Whatever about climate change, nukes will wipe us out before melting icecaps.

Wouldn’t say it’s too far away.

If you look at the last century, nuclear weapons have actually ensured peace. Russia or China can't launch one without NATO launching one, that's how it works. Its a deterrent for war due to unimaginable destruction they would cause to both sides, no one wins.

I don't think its a bad thing more countries having them, places like Iran and North Korea want them for defense from a US invasion. I don't think any dictator or rogue state is mad enough to use one.

Something like 5 missiles per country would be grand, having hundreds takes the fun out if it.

I remember that one where the Russian official disobeyed the launch order.....it was on a UFO type programme which I was taking with a grain of salt on the history channel

Said it coincided with UFO activity....I presumed it was a malfunction of dome sort

Terrifying given the probable chain of events if it had been launched.....also remember stories of several suitcase dirty nukes unaccounted for after the collapse of the old soviet Union

But like previous poster said, cats out of the bag/Pandora box has been opened...I don't think many countries will be persuaded to give up their big sticks....

I used to be against nuclear proliferation but a couple of things have changed my mind somewhat.

1) The fact that an increasing amount of bad actors have nukes. North Korea has them and Iran likely will have them this decade, in addition to their allies Russia and China that are both committing genocide as we speak. No reason that democracies should have no nukes if dictatorships that threaten them do.

2) Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This showed two things: firstly that not only should an attack by a dictatorship against a free people be considered a matter of when, not if, but that this attack should not only be totally unprovoked, but also in violation of every international law and norm. Not only has Russia proven genocidal intent, but their actions have followed on from this committing in my estimation 4 of the 5 possible actions indicating genocide. Not only this but the Russians have descended to the level of nuclear terrorists by attacking both the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants and using both as nuclear shields for their artillery and other military bases and materiel. The only question in my mind is who is next. Taiwan? Moldova? South Korea? The Baltic States? Who might the mullahs of Iran have a quarrel with?

If nuclear weapons allows small democracies to protect their people against this kind of savage barbarity, post 24 Feb 2022, I think it needs to be considered. Time and time again throughout history, a stance of "we want nothing but to be left alone" has not protected people. In some cases a people that don't want to be enslaved or destroyed have to take the stance of "leave us alone - or else!" and the "or else!" part must be sufficiently dissuasive.