Should the world’s nuclear countries work toward eliminating such weapons?

The United States and Russia have agreed to a new weapons treaty that if ratified will lead to modest cuts in nuclear arsenals. Today’s Question: Should the world’s nuclear countries work toward eliminating such weapons?

  • Gary F

    The reduction in missiles really doesn’t matter, it’s a feel good issue.

    The problem is that Obama negotiated away our ability to create new bombs with new technologies, thus hurting our ability to defend ourselves and stay a leg up.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Yes, but they won’t. It would require them all to trust each other and to be trustworthy themselves.

  • zombie

    The fact that Obama negotiated away our ability to create new bombs is a feel bad issue. I really don’t think that matters much considering that just means that we can’t design new warheads, not missiles or propelling capabilities. Get your facts straight.

    No, they shouldn’t. Not because we should use them in war but because we have no idea what future technology could benefit from work we do now in developing better weaponry. i agree that the existence of nuclear weapons means there is a risk someone could steal one, but that is a small risk, and even if we eliminate all weapons it doesn’t mean we’re going to start a giant fire and burn all the notes we took, the knowledge will still be out there.

    They should work towards reducing and controlling the creation of the weapons, but not total elimination. Right after we dismantle the last warhead will be when the Reptilian Overlords show up.

  • Scott

    Elimination of nuclear weapons is a good long term goal. In the mean time there are concrete steps that need to be taken to have a more secure nuclear stockpile. Fewer and better secured weapons worldwide is a desirable and obtainable goal.

    Assuming that we will have nuclear adversaries it is important to maintain deterrence capabilities. This is a reality for at least the mid term.

    Missile defense will make us less safe. It will upend stable deterrence and will not prevent a nonconventional terrorist attack. Even if we could make missile defense work, which is unlikely, it is a very bad idea for security.

  • James

    “Speak softly and carry a big stick”.

    T. Roosevelt first used the phrase in a speech at the Minnesota State Fair on September 2, 1901.

    People that would like to see the “Great Satan” fall, respect a society that has a strong military. If they sense a weak enemy they WILL attack.

    I do NOT think the USA should be a global police force.

    We do need to protect our borders to keep out the drugs, illegal aliens, and terrorists.

    If a country like Iran or North Korea attacks us I say we use a few nuclear weapons to level them.


  • Lawrence

    Yes, the world’s nuclear countries should work toward eliminating such weapons, but will they is the question. Historically, the nation’s with the strongest armies don’t reduce weapons because weapons is power, and they receive a lot of benefits from being powerful. Russia, economically, isn’t very powerful; yet, countries remain weary of Russia because of its weapons.

  • Gregory

    Elimination of nuclear weapons is not going to happen, and should not happen. Our armed forces are very lean, and depend upon the threat of nuclear operations to make our conventional force credible. I was shocked that President Obama gave away the ability to develop new weapons. This is the height of naivity, and in my opinion, stupidity. Add that to the position taken of eshewing a nuclear response to a chemical or biological attack indicates that the President does not understand the most basic military concepts. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are all weapons of mass destruction. This country has sworn off chemical and biological weapons, so the only response we have to that sort of attack is the employment of a nuclear package. If Obama wants to make nice with feel good comments, that’s fine. But the reality must retain a credible nuclear force.

  • Gordon near Two Harbors

    The cat is out of the bag and it ain’t going back in.

    I can’t foresee a time when nuclear weapons will totally disappear, because no country could be absolutely sure that its enemies didn’t retain at least a few of these weapons.

    Reducing the number of nukes is a common sense issue. They are expensive to maintain and secure, and we (and the Russians) have so many that there is no conceivable situation where you could detonate that number of weapons and still have humanity survive the fallout.

    The non-thinkers that believe Obama (along with our own military experts) has somehow “weakened” our ability to protect our country in any way seem delussional.

    We can still place a ten-megaton nuclear weapon within three feet of its target, anywhere on Earth. How much more do you need?

  • James Johnson

    Look at this question from the opposite side — -Should the world’s nuclear countries work toward creating such weapons? I think not, thus the original question must be answered as “Yes.”

    The USA and Russia each have about 5000 nuclear warheads each. I suspect that makes us powerful and demands respect from non-nuclear countries as was stated earlier by a nuclear proponent. Let’s see, does Iran respect us? How about Libya? Syria?

    Only two nuclear bombs have ever been used during wartime and that was 65 years ago. Most people reading this weren’t alive 65 years ago. I was. The pictures of the horrible aftereffects are enough to turn most people against their use except in the most dire of circumstances.

    Let’s keep a balance between the two major powers and work toward a peaceful coexistence with all countries.

    For the most conservative of you out there, ask yourself WWJD?

  • Tom

    The NPT treaty (1969?) requires signitaries reduce their stock- piles. This has been the law of our land for 40 years now! (Since Mar 1970)

    Is anyone awake!


  • DNA

    Absolutely…and at the same time grow our mutual understanding, compassion, intelligence, hemp/cannabis/ganja and all other beneficial sustainable/renewable resources.

  • kennedy

    Total nuclear disarmament is a nice dream that doesn’t translate to the reality of our world that includes greed and hate.

  • gary