Absolutely. Imagine if, for example, you're a country with no nuclear weapons and another one with nuclear weapons wants to have some kind of deal in which your country will be in disadvantage. You can refuse, but the country with nuclear weapons can threaten you with the nukes. If both countries have nuclear weapons, no unfair deals will be imposed, because nobody is really crazy enough to start a nuclear war which will obliterate both countries.

1. Alien invasion. If we cant win we will go down in STYLE!

2. Incoming asteroid

3. Create a "nuclear Winter" thus effectively solving global warming (since the sun rays cant get through as much).

4. Wipe out a country that really deserves it. Im talking a country (none in particular) that is 100% dedicated to death, destruction, and fear without any remorse whatsoever.

Well said.

The realialty is that we need nukes. Like the caveman needed an axe and the cowboy a gun. It's just what it is.

The question is do we need so many.

The year is 1961

Kennedy to Kruschev:

"We now have enough nukes to destroy the earth five times over"

Kruschev to kennedy:

"We have enough nukes to destroy the earth once. Surely once is enough. Why destroy something that has already been destroyed. Americans are truly a strange people".

In an ideal world no one would have nuclear weapons... however since the technology is out there and it can't be simply suppressed or wiped out, the possibility of a MAD bringing deterrence is the best we can have right now.

Anyways I actually don't think there is too much of them out there to really pose a threat to civilization... so maybe in present day numbers they are a desirable thing because of said deterrence...

I believe you're talking about the Marianas Trenth off of the Philippines, is that right?

You're right nuclear weapons are not the future.. Anti-matter is!

Premise is good, but the alleged quotes are nothing but historical anecdote, i.e. never happened in real life. The whole idea of "destroying the Earth" is rather vague and could be attributed to nuke-o-phobia, created by countlesss post-apocalyptic movies, books, games etc. Destroying what? The planet entirely? You need a Death Star for that. Biosphere? Not possible. Humanity? Not a chance. Civilization? Well, if I say there're good chances to sink half of state of California (literally) into the ocean, would that count? Not a big loss imo. Massive death toll? That's a given.

About current nuclear threats, I'd personally would have worried more about Pakistan and Israel, rather than Iran, North Korea or China.

Speaking about China (once again to debunk some myths). They've got 48 ICBM, out of which only 36 could reach the US. In theory... because in practice there were no test launches that reached claimed maximum range goal acceptable for intercontinental ballistic missiles, i.e. 8000 km minimum. Maximum range ever proven by test launches were within Chinese territory, i.e. 3000-3500 km range.

At the moment launches could be performed only from national territory, Chinese SSBNs aren't battle-ready and won't have chances leaving aquatory of South and East Chine Seas undetected anyway. So that limits threatened territories to Alaska and Hawaii, no further. Besides there're good chances of interception of smth like couple of dozens of unmaneuverable warheads before they reach US territory. In other words, threat is miminal.

//Answering the OP. Of course, there's a point. We're in the middle of WW3 (practically), if not for the nukes it'd be much bigger than series of local conflicts.

Deterrence.