I mean about 20000 (all countries) have been made so far since 1945 and the 2 used were to put Japan in it's place in world war 2. They may have been used as a detterent to stop direct war between the superpowers in the cold war, but that time is behind us now. We have no intention of using them on each other and i hope we never will, so why do we actually need them? Surely we could of used the money to find cures for diseases and for major advancements in technologies to better our race, instead of investing in ones which could destroy us. Even if we have them for security reasons, why do America and Russia need so many? 

I personally want there to less and less nuclear weapons over a period of time, but do it gradually like some of the nuclear proliferation treaties have in the past. Eventually, a nuke free world would be nice

But what will we do when an asteroid strike is imminent? We need the nukes!

Bragging rights for incompetent people that rely on brute strength and destruction to convey their messages.

In other words, no.

Wouldn't that be quite dangerous? The asteroid would be obleterated but there is a great risk of irradiating our atmosphere by doing that, it depends on how close the asteroid is when detonating 

There are two major problems with disarmament. One, if someone actually doesn't disarm and hides nukes. Two. if someone can make nukes in secret after disarmament.

Sending them into space risks extintion because if the rockets sending them out there have an accident and explode say hello nuclear winter.

Droping them into the ocean, or buring them under a mountain, means that they will be there decaying for 10,000 years risking future peril due to the earth's movement. An earthquake or a plate shift could spell disaster for the future of mankind.

Ultimately you need a significant nuclear arsenal to pose a real military threat, and likely only America, Russia, and possibly China have that. Otherwise the threat is more psychological (you can do a fair bit of damage with one nuke, of course, but it wouldn't be enough for North Korea to just nuke, say, Seoul to stop South Korea, but in an ideal world, Seoul wouldn't get nuked at all, which really raises the costs of waging war on North Korea, playing to their advantage in negotiations.

This assumes, of course, that cooler heads prevail in the upper echelons of government. The kind of brinksmanship that led to World War I, for instance, could easily just see the nukes being used.

no we need more nukes, because what's the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a nuke? right, a good guy with a nuke

Even with the recent threats from North Korea to nuke America, it just won't happen unless the regime is just insane and doesn't care anymore. Despite the potential threat North korea has on it's neighbours by having nukes, i don't see them doing something that would lead to there demise. The regime of Kim Jung Un is what North Korea is, thats it. North Korea is nothing without it's crazy government. 

Yes, there is a point.

Iran. North Korea. Any other belligerent aspiring powers. The reason we haven't bombed both of these countries substantially is that we have nukes. Even if they get them, we hope that our arsenal will serve as a deterrent to actual war.

Also, such countries will develop these weapons whether or not we have nukes. If we dismantle ours, that gives them the upper hand, and forces military intervention. Sanctions certainly never stopped anyone, determined enough, from developing nukes.

I don't think we need to build more. I think we need to focus our efforts on eliminating the threat such weapons pose to our cities. If we can effectively and reliably defend against nukes (however they may be transported and detonated), THEN we can eliminate nuclear weapons. As of right now, we must have them. Just to have them. It is sad, but it is true.