Speaking about trustworthy countries and so trustworthy, who should have nuclear weapons and who should not. Do I remember that correctly and the US just "sunk" four nuclear warheads into the ocean near Greenland? AFAIR one of them is STILL there :D BTW does that makes Denmark a possessor of a nuclear weapon?

 Just saying. Intesresting episode of the world history, if I'm not mistaken this is only incident in history when nuclear weapon was "lost".

I think the Soviets had one submarine sunken with a nuke inside, but I could be mistaken. Either way, for the US, sinking nukes towards the bottom of the Arctic Ocean and its methane clathrate reserves doesn't seem like a good idea to me...

Actually that's not even the first time the US has misplaced Nuclear weapons....

Hell, if they just recently sunk 4 there, it's not even the first time the US lost Nuclear warheads near greenland.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-nuclear-needle-in-a-haystack-the-cold-war-s-missing-atom-bombs-a-590513.html

That's not saying there aren't any similar situations Russian wise.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_09/lebedsept

(Number has to be exagerrated though)

Really just makes a stronger point though on why you'd really want to limit nuclear bomb ownership.

Humans are too stupid to have something that can be potentially destructive, that applies to all countries not just 'rogue states'.  

Which again makes your position in this thread asinine.

Nobody should have a "Blow up the world" button either. 

But if just because a couple reall intellegent scientists deve;op one, it'd be stupid to say that because they refuse to get rid of it, EVERYBODY should be allowed to have one... because it's too dangerous for anyone to have.

Or hell, even if the only person in the world who has a blow up the world button is a crazy idiot, it'd be best if he was still the only person with a blpw up the world button....

because it lowers the risk of you know... the world being blown up.

Nice words, but what can you do to make it real?
Say, if USA wants it to be true, they have 2 ways:
1. Take other's nuclear weapons by military power, crush all the science who can produce it and the civil objects using it (like Nuclear power plants, as potentially it can lead to weapons).
2. Be a moral leader of the world, get rid of nuclear weapons themselves and say - hey look at me and do it the way I do.

Which way would you prefer?

Neither is possible, once someone has nukes you can't take them away.

That said.  When it comes to limiting nukes, for example I'd prefer 1, but not just including the US but most nuclear states and most countries who support them.  Only in the cases where countries refuse to stop setting up nuclear weapons programs with other methods.  (Like the sanctions that currently exist etc(.

Why?  Because the world isn't an episode of Captain Planet.

No country is really going to follow suit.

Hell no country would even believe the US got rid of all their nukes.  Just like with Biological weapons.

and Nuclear plants where countries like Russia supply and recover all the Uranium works well enough to keep Nuclear Plants in buisness.

Smth worth adding instead of pointless discussion about nuclear weapons is  MID statement on the involvement of Greystone in the recently heated up Ukraine events.

By itself the statement worth nothing, but we might see some light lit on the subject when the events will go further. After all PMCs have been used widely (for starters they contribute half to the deatholl of the alliance in the Afghanistan throughout the last decade) and aside perfectly valid activity have been reported to have rather shady and informal affairs with the authorities on the very dirty, often bloody, morally and legally questionable things. First rumors have started with what looked like a false report almost a month ago (even before Crimenian events), eventually more reports appeared, but they were either rumors or proved to be false (like the recent one that showed people in NATO uniform and only on tha fact suggesting they were mercenaries, or obvious fakes like OSCE inspectors who have been caught on camera in the mall and naturally inspired few rumors).

Nevertheless I do beleive there's some ground for the rumors, but time will tell.

Gas pipeline explosion in Ivano-Frankovsk -- terrorist attack

:D

And yet another one!

Ukraine Says Gas Pipeline Explosion "Probably Terrorist Attack"