Views on nuclear disarmament?

[Sumner 1868]

The last week has made that quite obvious this issue needs to be addressed again.

[TheSaint250]

Definitely gradual.  Immediate is too...immediate.  Other nations will not give up the weapons so easily; it's their form of strength that makes the equal to other powerful nations.  But we need to get these weapons off the face of the planet one day.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Definitely gradual.  Immediate is too...immediate.  Other nations will not give up the weapons so easily; it's their form of strength that makes the equal to other powerful nations.  But we need to get these weapons off the face of the planet one day.

[Mr. Reactionary]

An ideal system would have verifiable, proportionate, multilateral disarmament.

[Lechasseur]

Definitely gradual.  Immediate is too...immediate.  Other nations will not give up the weapons so easily; it's their form of strength that makes the equal to other powerful nations.  But we need to get these weapons off the face of the planet one day.

An ideal system would have verifiable, proportionate, multilateral disarmament.

[Santander]

They will exist until something even more terrifying replaces them.

[°Leprechaun]

Clearly THE most important issue in the last 72 years and 6 days.

I voted for option 1, but option 2 is all right as well. Clearly there are too many in the
world and if the US wants to stop other nations from having and possibly using them
it would be prudent to start reducing our own and at an accelerated pace and start immediately.

The situation in NK is quite disturbing and that is an understatement. Nukes should be taken
off the table as an option. I agree 100% with those who say diplomacy is the only answer.

It may sound ludicrous to suggest that we should "just let NK have them and leave it alone."
However, I think that the fears of them having them, when so many other crazies have had them, may possibly be a little bit of hyperbole. At any rate, the whole MAD theory is just that, MAD.

[°Leprechaun]

They will exist until something even more terrifying replaces them.

Perhaps biological weapons are more terrifying.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Horrible Idea.

[Mr. Reactionary]

They will exist until something even more terrifying replaces them.

Perhaps biological weapons are more terrifying.

Or a switch that can turn off our internet.

[dead0man]

They exist, you can't wish them away.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Ideally, it would be best if every country agrees to disarm at the same time, but our current situation of MAD worked well in preventing major global wars for the past 70 years. Let's just continue the status quo if all countries don't unanimously agree to destroy their nukes.

[Cashew]

No the earth should remain militarized unless it is proven we are the only life in the universe.

[thumb21]

No nuclear disarmament. Mutually assured destruction has been one of the main drivers of world peace since WW2.

[Green Line]

Can't put the cat back into the bag.

[Dr. MB]

Support immediate. Keep many safeguarded in various locations by the U.N. to use against future threats such as asteroids or extraterrestrials.

[HillGoose]

Oppose.

If we get rid of ours, but no other nations get rid of theirs, we lose. But if we develop technology to the point where we have a faster trigger, we win.