You just gave me the best idea!  We should sell them to other countries and pay off the national debt!!  It's genious!!

Pakistan is building two reactors to create more weapons grade fuel, and a third to recycle existing reactor fuel into weapons grade plutonium.  One of those reactors started spewing steam a couple of weeks ago, indicating early production stages.

They do not deny an increase in nuclear weapons production, citing a US deal with India's civilian reactors to sell fuel, thereby freeing up more Indian reactors for weapons production.

Meanwhile, China and Russia are both upgrading their delivery systems, thereby increasing the danger posed by and lethality of their nuclear weapons.  Of the major powers, only Barack Obama appears to have promised not to upgrade delivery systems (this essentially means creating better MIRV missles, stealthy submarines and hardened silos BTW) whilst simultaneously reducing spending on missile defense.

At this point I might also add that despite his big conference this week on nuclear security, in his first year Barack Obama actually reduced US spending on securing existing weapons grade nuclear material around the world by $25 million.

Edit:  So as you said, fingers crossed.

Because it is incredibly expensive to maintain them. 

The USA could probably make do with a very well maintained 500 nuclear warheads, around a twentieth of the number it currently possesses (Note: Only half of the USA's arsenal is considered "Active").

Even with high spending on fantastic deliver systems, the cost would be a FRACTION of current nuclear weapons maintenance spending.

Edit: Current US spending on nuclear weapons and related programs is upwards of $50 billion per year.

Actually, when we are thinking about peace, everyone should have nukes. It makes no sense to attack someone who can destroy you with a single press of a button.

Other than that, i find the nuke disarming only PR, since what's the difference if you can destroy the world only 5 times, opposed to the ten times you could earlier. Nothing. That's why they are doing it (other than that, it's expensive to keep a huge nuke arsenal).

I'm talking about Afghanistan during the cold war. The Russians attacked it and the taliban and USA combined forces(USA giving money to support the taliban, not sending troops) repelled Russia.

And I know how the USA lost the war in Vietnam, but thanks for telling me :) 

And the outcome of the war without nuclear weapons would have only been worse for America by the way. Germany was already defeated and "peace" was back to Europe. 

The USA had to option to do another "D-day" with or without help of the Russians. They obviously chose the other option to nuke it. Pretty good choice because another D-day would have resulted in a massive loss of lives for both sides and they would need help from Russia aka increasing their influence. Even back then it was obvious that USSR and the USA would collide.

Quite true =)

That's what happened throughout the world war, even as I don't want any bloodshed still

Wow, thats over twice Australias entire budget for the military (which is 24 billion aussie according to wikipedia). Pretty crazy.

Currently, we spend 19% of our federal budget in military spending. That number should be closer to 90%. Defending our country from others is the one thing the federal government should be doing. The rest should be spent at a state level.

So imo, we spend way to much on the military. We should cut that spending (but not with respect to nukes), cut almost all the other spending, collect far less taxes at a federal level, and if states want to collect more taxes and run social programs, that's up to them.

Absolutely correct. America doesn't need to spend the amount of money it does to defend itself. Hell Australia is pretty much untouchable by everyone outside of some of our allies (USA, Britain) and we have next to no people in a comparable landmass.