I hope they are never used.
Is there any point in having nuclear weapons anymore? | |||
| Yes | 12 | 20.34% | |
| No | 14 | 23.73% | |
| I don't know | 1 | 1.69% | |
| Yes, For Security reasons | 5 | 8.47% | |
| Maybe | 0 | 0% | |
| Yes, to prevent war | 27 | 45.76% | |
| Total: | 59 | ||
YEAH! How else are we gonna blow up big space rocks bro!?
Nukes have amazing power, you never know when you might need that power. Nukes are a great deterrant against countries like North Korea and Iran too. I say keep them.

Doubtful it'll change, because just having them gives nation's massive power,... they can sit over other nations (this includes U.S.) and also it can be used as a defensive tactic... "You don't wanna piss me off" mentality. Kinda like how U.S. has bases everywhere to keep other nations 'safe' but it also makes our influence bigger and keeps other nations in line...
I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but there's a snowballs chance in hell that it'll ever change for the above reasons... that's part of why we don't want Iran getting or having nukes but it's OK for certain nations to have them.
Chark said:
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. |
If you're really worried about that, you should note that we've sent tons of radioactive material in space via RTGs and actual nuclear reactors. They have a level of danger, but so do ICBMs which go to the edge of space before landing on Earth.
As for OP - full nuclear disarmament is an incredibly idiotic thing. Without the spectre of mutually assured destruction, many, MANY more wars would have been fought over the past 60 years. Without fear of annihilation, there is almost no doubt that World War 3 would have commenced years ago, as the Soviet Union had vastly higher numbers of weapons in Europe and could have easily taken the entire continent after World War 2. The reason they didn't? US and French doctrine called for tactical nukes against the USSR in case of hostilities. Take that away, and the Soviet Union had nothing stopping them from owning Europe (unless you believe that NATO could have doubled or tripled their deployed units in Europe).
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
| spurgeonryan said: Then what when China or Iran say they do not give a Shit and hit someone? 20,000 is over kill though. Send them to space and then blow them up, or drop them in that deep trench in Pacific ocean and let them slowly die. |
USA is the only country to ever use nukes. if anything people should be worried that they would be using them again. not china and iran

| Andrespetmonkey said: But what will we do when an asteroid strike is imminent? We need the nukes! |
Especially now that we don't have Michael Clarke Duncan anymore.
I have the same opinion on this as on guns. I would love them to all be gone, but as long as one country (person) has a nuke (gun) I also want one.
So I think they should all be gone, but since countries like Russia, North Korea, China, etc. have them I want America/Western Europe to have them.
The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction is the greatest thing to happen to this planet. While it may sound utterly insane, thanks to nuclear weapons we have avoided major conflict and also the use of nuclear weapons since 1945. If nobody had nukes there for sure would have been a World War 3 by the 60s between the US and allies vs USSR and allies. The human costs would have been utterly horrendous. Major powers are extremely hesitant to face off due to nuclear weapons. As long as they don't fall into the hands of the utterly suicidal and insane, nukes are the greatest vessel of peace this planet has ever seen.

bananaking21 said:
USA is the only country to ever use nukes. if anything people should be worried that they would be using them again. not china and iran |
`Pretty much this. QFT.
I've always wondered if tensions really increased, could India or Pakistan use them against each other, or Israel on Iran?