Not to disagree with anyone, but I made this thread to discuss on the issues on disarming nuclear weapons.

Even as President Obama tries to disable nuclear weapons, nuclear strategists argued that nuclear wars that are planned efficiently can be fought and won. Most importantly, World wars have killed more people many times over compared to the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings, said Mr. Thomas Mahnken, a professor of strategy at the United States Naval War college.

If terrorists get the upperhand, we will be unprepared if they get hold of a huge supply of nuclear arms, their cleverness is shown in the Mumbai attacks.

it is also almost impossible to disable every countries nuclear arms, as the problem is who will pay for research losses.

The main point that I want to convey is that we should use nuclear weapons to defend, not to destruct.

As St Augutine once said:"make me a chaste...but not yet"

On a serious note though, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nothing compared with what a nuclear war would result in. The longer nuclear weapons are just stacked somewhere as a scare tactic, the better. Obviously th world is also very far from the perfect place where everyone would ditch their nuclear weapons.

Quite true, but if we disable all our nuclear weapons, will we be defenseless against the terrorists

Nuclear weapons are a great deterrent, they do a fantastic job, they always have done... Up until the first one is fired. That's the point when we will regret having them.

Quite true, and that is when physicists first sinned =)

How? 

If someone fires a nuclear warhead at the US, having 200,000 warheads of our own doesn't stop that one however advanced missile detection and anti-air interception capabilities would.  Nuclear weapons aren't tools for defense, they're tools for retaliation and deterrent.  Considering everyone is afraid to use nuclear weaponry these days, they're not exactly an effective deterrent against anything except other nations with nuclear weaponry (a group that doesn't include terrorists in the first place).

Nuclear weapons have done more for peace then any other peace treaties combined. In fact, all peace treaties do is cause more wars >_>

Without nuclear weapons there would have been an all out war with the Soviet union vs United states and it's allies. Biggest battleground? Probably Europe again.

Now only Vietnam, Afghanistan and North Korea got fucked up.

Well I personally feel we shouldn't disarm nuclear weapons. It's the only thing that stops a nation from declaring full out war on another. It's basically used as a means to deter and defend(then again any and all forms of military might do the same thing)

I agree with keeping them, it's one of the biggest reasons the cold war didn't go warm.

Obama isn't trying to make a world without Nukes, just an America without them.

I don't get it. We are not liked in the world. We can handle it two ways. We can give up all power and then ask the world to treat us well because we are equal, or we can dominate the world and make them respect our ability to destroy them if they screw with us.

The first option has never worked, and the second has never failed. So, Obama goes with the first. I guess that's what you get when you make a community organizer the most powerful man in the world.