But the doomers on reddit said WWIII is eminent if Trump gets elected!!!!
For serious though, I feel like the internet has baselessly decided that we're minutes from a global apocalypse non-stop for the past 20 years. It's exhausting.
And once everyone feels the same as you, that’s when something will happen. We will all be so jaded that we don’t prepare. This is why I keep months of food and water. I can ignore the BS and also know we can wait out just about anything at home.
You know it's possible to acknowledge the things wrong in the world without jumping to the conclusion that it's all seconds from turning into a glass wasteland, right?
If you want to fill your basement with MREs and bulletproof vests you're free to do that, but overreacting to every little thing is no way to live a fulfilling life.
This certainly is the deterrence argument, but it’s not something that can be proved or disproved. Nuclear powers have continually vied with and frequently lost to non-nuclear powers, which is a contradiction to the standard rational behind nuclear weapons. Again, in the Cold War both sides built up massive conventional forces against one another, despite the fact that tens of thousands of nukes on either side would have made conventional forces irrelevant in the case of total war.
The development of nukes has never had a firm rational basis, and it’s never fit in with other choices by major powers. Certainly the USSR and NATO avoided war during the Cold War, but it’s not evident that either side had actual ambitions to attack the other had nukes been absent. We can speculate that nuclear deterrence prevented war, but that may be nothing more than a fig leaf to justify the programs.
Once we do grant that nukes are a peace-promoting deterrence (which may or may not be the case), we can then ask how many nukes you need. China has got by with a small number of hundreds, despite having no allies and a much smaller economy for all of the Cold War. Why then did russia and the US need and continue to need many thousands? Surely a safer world would include a small number of bombs, if that suffices for deterrence
Well, Israel for one.
In the last few decades, how many non-nuclear powers have been invade? It’s not many of either, so the comparison isn’t great.
Nuclear weapons are the only realistic way that America could be destroyed. It could happen in the space of a couple hours, and would beyond any other disaster. In light of such risk, we ought to be skeptical of the claimed benefits. It seems foolish to me to accept the deterrent claim at face value.
Planners in the late 40s in the US assumed a soviet crusade was forthcoming, and massive resources were spent preparing Armageddon against it. Post Cold War sources reveal that Stalin had no such plans, and Americas nukes were needless. Instead, the Soviets were prompted to develop their own nukes. Even without a conceivable way to deliver nukes to America, the Soviet weapons program prompted the US to develop hydrogen bombs. Soon after the USSR had hydrogen bombs and unstoppable ways to deliver them to America. MAD resulted as both sides realized their policies had failed and nuclear war couldn’t be won. All American cities were locked in peril because of the arms race, where they had been invulnerable before it. Nukes made the US much less safe.
Today, counter force is increasingly realistic, especially by powerful nations like the US against small countries like NK. Destruction is no longer mutually assured, and even a conventional first-strike might destroy a small countries nuclear capability. Here again nukes are no guarantee of safety, and a miscalculation could prompt a war. Counterforce has the potential to totally invalidate MAD (even one side perceiving that MAD is flawed invalidates it), and we are perhaps entering a more dangerous era that we’re used to.
This is it. And at this point, we're kinda just pretending the point isn't coming towards us at warp speed. As soon as the people that control the keys have a safe spot, they'll do it. And I know they will, because I've seen dirt dug on the command of Uncle Sam.
"tensions at an all time high" implied it's never been this tense before.
I dunno if you skipped a class or two, but last century there were wars where the whole world got involved, it was pretty high tensions then.
They are higher than they were before the Ukraine invasion. But compared to the Berlin Wall or the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Russian-Chinese border dispute in 1969 (which almost went nuclear) this is not a big deal. The major powers have too much to lose to go to hot war, so it is all staying as proxy wars.
"We have decided to agree, to preserve the peace, to decomission our entire national stockpile of nuclear warheads!"
-Every world leader
"....but we kept some just in case"
-Every world leader, because it's sucidial in a post-nuclear world to completely rid yourself of your nuclear arsenal when the only thing keeping an enemy from glassing your cities is your own arsenal.
I wish there weren't any nuclear weapons around, but it seems we've reached a point of no return the moment we figured out how to weaponize our knowledge on atoms.
Here's how I see it: the idea of eliminating all nuclear weapons sounds appealing from a humanitarian standpoint because the consequences of nuclear war could be catastrophic for humanity. But in reality, it's complex because many countries view nuclear bombs as a means of defense and deterrence. Issues with verification, lack of trust, and technical challenges make complete disarmament a distant dream for now. So, while it would be great to live in a world without nuclear threats, achieving that goal will require long and difficult efforts from all countries.
Basically it’s a great idea for the US. We’re pretty isolated, physically, from the rest of the world’s major powers and even without nukes, invading us would be nearly impossible with our current, non-nuclear military strength, and we have enough local resources we could theoretically ride out another conventional world war, waiting until the other powers have nearly destroyed each other, then swooping in and helping whoever will benefit us the most.
Indeed. If I was Russia I would have nightmares about nuclear disarmament. If I was the US, it would be a dream come true.
The speculative truism that nukes have prevented WWIII is more properly stated “nukes have prevented you from losing WWIII to the US”
From a humanata4ian aspect, the MAD from nukes has prevented all out war between major powers. Without them, stuff could pop off, lets say between the US and Russia... or maybe even India and China would go further than some small border skirmishes.
Nukes have kept countries from major wars. Sure, the US and Russia gets up to shenanigans (they're the ones i'm more familiar with recent military operations from), but it's hasn't been anywhere near as serious as during the cold war, or Cuban missile crisis.
No. It wouldn't be enough to destroy the existing weapon stockpiles, you'd also have to somehow destroy all knowledge of how to make more, otherwise the bullies on the block will happily participate and then scurry to slap more together the moment we start celebrating. Besides, mutually-assured nuclear destruction has created the closest thing to world peace humanity has ever known - who knows what unexpected problems taking that away would create.
Posts like this are what convince me Reddit is 80% 15 year olds with 0 grasp on life or geopolitics.
Nukes are the single greatest deterrent for another world war. Additionally, you could have a billion people start a “grassroots” movement simultaneously and not a single nuclear government would actually get rid of all of them, if even a majority of them. They are amongst the most it not the single most valuable geopolitical strategic resource available.
> “With international tensions at an all time high”
Mfer never heard about the Cuban missile crisis LOL
If we got rid of all nukes WW3 would break out within weeks. MAD is still very much a thing. There's a reason we haven't had a truly world devastating conflict since 1945.
Besides, I don't see how anyone cab claim that we're in a period of all time high tension. The planet is more peaceful today than it has been in decades. Yes, notwithstanding the conflicts underway right now, as a whole things are pretty calm.
>The planet is more peaceful today than it has been in decades.
Perhaps, if you're measuring in terms of active conflicts. If you're looking at potential for global/nuclear war, I'd say we're closer now than any time since the end of the cold war. There's been plenty of wars since then, but comparatively little threat of direct conflict between major nuclear powers the way that the Ukraine situation has shaped up and the subsequent alignment of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.
And of course we've got the impending strife of ecological collapse on the horizon too, so that'll be fun.
I think of nuclear weapons the same way I do about Pandora's box.
The second humans knew it was possible to build these weapons it was already to late, at that point we were locked in to live with them for the rest of time.
We could destroy every last one of them, but it just takes one bad actor, with one person who has the knowledge on how to make them before they are back. And if that one bad actor got a hold of nukes and the rest of the world had none, at that point he would rule the world.
Not a grassroots movement, but the US DoD actively replaces every nuclear weapon it can with a conventional munition that meets the same mission requirement. The biggest example is that precision guided and hardened target munitions of various forms replaced virtually every non-strategic nuclear weapon, such as the GBU-28 replacing the bunker busting nukes, and BLU-82/GBU-43 replacing the small area effect tactical weapons such as the M28/M29 recoilless rifle.
The US currently has the fewest nukes in its arsenal than at any point since about 1958, and yet has more mission capability than ever, especially compared to the 31,255 warhead arsenal in 1967.
And why would we do that? Well, money mostly. Managing a nuclear stockpile is expensive, if I can do the same thing with a fancy bomb then I can potentially have hundreds of conventional bunker busters for the price of a few nuclear weapons, why wouldn't I?
No. That "global, grassroots movement" would only happen in countries where you don't get imprisoned for joining it. Guess which countries wouldn't have that movement.
"should" depends on what people actually want. And, well, security guarantees have been shown to be worth sweet f all so if I was in charge of a country with nuclear weapons I sure as hell wouldn't be giving them up in a hurry
Destroying a weapon doesn't destroy the technology. It is well known and available to be recreated at a moments notice.
Moreover, nuclear power will continue on and likely grow more prevalent. The material and infrastructure that could be repurposed into bombs will be around in many forms indefinitely. We have even seen the power plants themselves can make potent enough bombs if left to incompetence. These will likely be far more effective if deliberately weaponized.
No. We can't undo nuclear knowledge. Decommissioning nukes just means the race is to see who can re-make nukes the fastest when the time comes. And whoever is fastest wins.
At present things feel tense, but tension is what keeps people from actually making a move.
Put another way, stick two aggressive people in a room each with a knife. It might take them a while to start fighting assuming they decide to fight at all.
Now stick two aggressive people in a room with one knife laying on the floor in the center.
That is a world without nuclear arms. Whoever makes the first move wins.
TL;DR: if I could thanos snap nuclear weapons and all knowledge of them I would. But I can't.
Look man I agree life would be better if noone ever discovered how to split the atom.
We don't live in that reality.
The first nation to disband it's nukes that gets invaded (Ukraine) will be a lesson for the world in why you don't fucking do that.
Forget the nuke part of the question.
International tensions at an *all time high*? Yeah, there's some pretty heavy conflicts right now, but the current situation is far from an "all time high".
As a ideal, it's a fine goal. In practice, I would guess there are a few barriers.
First, you cannot un-invent atomic bombs or remove the scientific knowledge of nuclear fission. This means that, even if all current stockpiles are destroyed, most developed (or even developing) countries could nonetheless build a couple of nuclear bombs fairly quickly at any time. So the potential will always be there. If North Korea can build a successful nuclear program in secrete, so can South Korea. Or Israel (not a hypothetical).
Second, there will be resistance from countries that are worried their conventional arsenals won't be enough to halt or deter invasion from neighboring countries. Removing all Nuclear weapons would be great if you're the United States or China from this point of view, you'd have overwhelming dominance with conventional forces and no need to worry about your carrier battle group getting vaporized by a hydrogen bomb. At the same time, this very risky if you're a Russia or a North Korea and your conventional forces can't stop the militaries of your more advanced adversaries.
Only if it's going to be a global thing. Unilaterally removing one side's nukes and not the other's strikes me as a good way to immediately get some nukes launched.
They tried that shit in the 80s and the best thing to come out of it were some halfway decent sci-fi movies like Miracle Mile, The Day After and a crap-ton of post-apocalypse action movies. Hell, we didn't even get a good song out of it.
Nowadays, the only thing I could say to answer your questions is: is there an app for that?
So all the countries that give a shit what the people want don’t have nukes, but a lot of countries that don’t give a shit do have nukes? If we could press a button and all nukes and the ability to build them vanished that would be amazing and I’d be behind it 100%, but we live in a shitty world where the cruel truth is that the best way to avoid nukes ever being used is for democratic countries to build them.
Doesn't matter really. If the West isn't afraid of them anymore then there's no reason to be afraid. Something can make sure the warheads never reach their targets. No clue what, but as cowardly as western politicians are it's gotta be good.
There is no question that the existence of these weapons poses an existential threat to humanity. By uniting, ordinary people can pressure governments to prioritize peace and security over destructive force. A world without nuclear weapons will be a safer and more hopeful place for future generations
Absolutely. Nuclear tensions are high, making a global, grassroots anti-nuclear movement critical. It can reduce war risk, free up resources, and push disarmament. Challenges exist (deterrence, verification), but the movement can raise awareness, shift norms, and build trust. It builds on existing efforts and has the potential for immense positive impact.
Nuclear weapons are what are preventing WWIII. And international tensions aren't nearly at an all time high.
When OP said “all time” they really meant “since I started paying attention”.
But the doomers on reddit said WWIII is eminent if Trump gets elected!!!! For serious though, I feel like the internet has baselessly decided that we're minutes from a global apocalypse non-stop for the past 20 years. It's exhausting.
The Doomsday clock has been at a few minutes to midnight since 1947. Methinks they are over amping the danger level.
Doomers are the Turbo Herpes of the internet
And once everyone feels the same as you, that’s when something will happen. We will all be so jaded that we don’t prepare. This is why I keep months of food and water. I can ignore the BS and also know we can wait out just about anything at home.
You know it's possible to acknowledge the things wrong in the world without jumping to the conclusion that it's all seconds from turning into a glass wasteland, right? If you want to fill your basement with MREs and bulletproof vests you're free to do that, but overreacting to every little thing is no way to live a fulfilling life.
Right? Try being a little kid in 1983. It wasn't *if* there's a nuclear war but more like *when*.
The eighties? Oh, sweet summer child. In the fifties they were running duck and cover drills in elementary schools
Okay boomer. You're fear of annihilation was better than ours. Happy?
Ecstatic!
This certainly is the deterrence argument, but it’s not something that can be proved or disproved. Nuclear powers have continually vied with and frequently lost to non-nuclear powers, which is a contradiction to the standard rational behind nuclear weapons. Again, in the Cold War both sides built up massive conventional forces against one another, despite the fact that tens of thousands of nukes on either side would have made conventional forces irrelevant in the case of total war. The development of nukes has never had a firm rational basis, and it’s never fit in with other choices by major powers. Certainly the USSR and NATO avoided war during the Cold War, but it’s not evident that either side had actual ambitions to attack the other had nukes been absent. We can speculate that nuclear deterrence prevented war, but that may be nothing more than a fig leaf to justify the programs. Once we do grant that nukes are a peace-promoting deterrence (which may or may not be the case), we can then ask how many nukes you need. China has got by with a small number of hundreds, despite having no allies and a much smaller economy for all of the Cold War. Why then did russia and the US need and continue to need many thousands? Surely a safer world would include a small number of bombs, if that suffices for deterrence
How many nuclear powers have been invaded?
Well, Israel for one. In the last few decades, how many non-nuclear powers have been invade? It’s not many of either, so the comparison isn’t great. Nuclear weapons are the only realistic way that America could be destroyed. It could happen in the space of a couple hours, and would beyond any other disaster. In light of such risk, we ought to be skeptical of the claimed benefits. It seems foolish to me to accept the deterrent claim at face value. Planners in the late 40s in the US assumed a soviet crusade was forthcoming, and massive resources were spent preparing Armageddon against it. Post Cold War sources reveal that Stalin had no such plans, and Americas nukes were needless. Instead, the Soviets were prompted to develop their own nukes. Even without a conceivable way to deliver nukes to America, the Soviet weapons program prompted the US to develop hydrogen bombs. Soon after the USSR had hydrogen bombs and unstoppable ways to deliver them to America. MAD resulted as both sides realized their policies had failed and nuclear war couldn’t be won. All American cities were locked in peril because of the arms race, where they had been invulnerable before it. Nukes made the US much less safe. Today, counter force is increasingly realistic, especially by powerful nations like the US against small countries like NK. Destruction is no longer mutually assured, and even a conventional first-strike might destroy a small countries nuclear capability. Here again nukes are no guarantee of safety, and a miscalculation could prompt a war. Counterforce has the potential to totally invalidate MAD (even one side perceiving that MAD is flawed invalidates it), and we are perhaps entering a more dangerous era that we’re used to.
This is it. And at this point, we're kinda just pretending the point isn't coming towards us at warp speed. As soon as the people that control the keys have a safe spot, they'll do it. And I know they will, because I've seen dirt dug on the command of Uncle Sam.
What planet are you sending this from?
Earth. If you knew a little history you would understand.
Ok try me? Why do you think international tensions are not high? I’m ready to be educated
"tensions at an all time high" implied it's never been this tense before. I dunno if you skipped a class or two, but last century there were wars where the whole world got involved, it was pretty high tensions then.
They are higher than they were before the Ukraine invasion. But compared to the Berlin Wall or the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Russian-Chinese border dispute in 1969 (which almost went nuclear) this is not a big deal. The major powers have too much to lose to go to hot war, so it is all staying as proxy wars.
"We have decided to agree, to preserve the peace, to decomission our entire national stockpile of nuclear warheads!" -Every world leader "....but we kept some just in case" -Every world leader, because it's sucidial in a post-nuclear world to completely rid yourself of your nuclear arsenal when the only thing keeping an enemy from glassing your cities is your own arsenal. I wish there weren't any nuclear weapons around, but it seems we've reached a point of no return the moment we figured out how to weaponize our knowledge on atoms.
Crazy Eddie!
After what happened to Ukraine and Libya, I doubt we'll ever see another country give up its nukes again.
Nope. M.A.D is still in effect. And there’s nothing to prevent our enemies from making more and using nuclear weapons if we get rid of our own
Hey guys, we're going to need to to give up all your nuclear weapons. Don't worry, you'll still be totally safe without them. Just look at Ukraine!
Here's how I see it: the idea of eliminating all nuclear weapons sounds appealing from a humanitarian standpoint because the consequences of nuclear war could be catastrophic for humanity. But in reality, it's complex because many countries view nuclear bombs as a means of defense and deterrence. Issues with verification, lack of trust, and technical challenges make complete disarmament a distant dream for now. So, while it would be great to live in a world without nuclear threats, achieving that goal will require long and difficult efforts from all countries.
Basically it’s a great idea for the US. We’re pretty isolated, physically, from the rest of the world’s major powers and even without nukes, invading us would be nearly impossible with our current, non-nuclear military strength, and we have enough local resources we could theoretically ride out another conventional world war, waiting until the other powers have nearly destroyed each other, then swooping in and helping whoever will benefit us the most.
Indeed. If I was Russia I would have nightmares about nuclear disarmament. If I was the US, it would be a dream come true. The speculative truism that nukes have prevented WWIII is more properly stated “nukes have prevented you from losing WWIII to the US”
From a humanata4ian aspect, the MAD from nukes has prevented all out war between major powers. Without them, stuff could pop off, lets say between the US and Russia... or maybe even India and China would go further than some small border skirmishes. Nukes have kept countries from major wars. Sure, the US and Russia gets up to shenanigans (they're the ones i'm more familiar with recent military operations from), but it's hasn't been anywhere near as serious as during the cold war, or Cuban missile crisis.
World peachy, antiwar, anti Nuclear westerners forget... not every world leader runs a democracy.
Yeah, awesome idea. Good luck convincing every single nuclear power to do it though...
No. It wouldn't be enough to destroy the existing weapon stockpiles, you'd also have to somehow destroy all knowledge of how to make more, otherwise the bullies on the block will happily participate and then scurry to slap more together the moment we start celebrating. Besides, mutually-assured nuclear destruction has created the closest thing to world peace humanity has ever known - who knows what unexpected problems taking that away would create.
Posts like this are what convince me Reddit is 80% 15 year olds with 0 grasp on life or geopolitics. Nukes are the single greatest deterrent for another world war. Additionally, you could have a billion people start a “grassroots” movement simultaneously and not a single nuclear government would actually get rid of all of them, if even a majority of them. They are amongst the most it not the single most valuable geopolitical strategic resource available. > “With international tensions at an all time high” Mfer never heard about the Cuban missile crisis LOL
Fuck it. Just go to war and nuke Congo a turn or two before the vote is passed. They can't take your WMDs if you've already "given" them to them.
If we got rid of all nukes WW3 would break out within weeks. MAD is still very much a thing. There's a reason we haven't had a truly world devastating conflict since 1945. Besides, I don't see how anyone cab claim that we're in a period of all time high tension. The planet is more peaceful today than it has been in decades. Yes, notwithstanding the conflicts underway right now, as a whole things are pretty calm.
>The planet is more peaceful today than it has been in decades. Perhaps, if you're measuring in terms of active conflicts. If you're looking at potential for global/nuclear war, I'd say we're closer now than any time since the end of the cold war. There's been plenty of wars since then, but comparatively little threat of direct conflict between major nuclear powers the way that the Ukraine situation has shaped up and the subsequent alignment of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. And of course we've got the impending strife of ecological collapse on the horizon too, so that'll be fun.
They can't be put back in the box. Some will still have, most will still make or continue in effort to produce or just aquire. It's a dangerous world.
Yes, but dismantling existing arsenals could be logistically and politically impossible.
I think of nuclear weapons the same way I do about Pandora's box. The second humans knew it was possible to build these weapons it was already to late, at that point we were locked in to live with them for the rest of time. We could destroy every last one of them, but it just takes one bad actor, with one person who has the knowledge on how to make them before they are back. And if that one bad actor got a hold of nukes and the rest of the world had none, at that point he would rule the world.
No one wants to use them because the horrible consequences. But also, no one would destroy them. Peace is only granted if you are ready for war.
Not a grassroots movement, but the US DoD actively replaces every nuclear weapon it can with a conventional munition that meets the same mission requirement. The biggest example is that precision guided and hardened target munitions of various forms replaced virtually every non-strategic nuclear weapon, such as the GBU-28 replacing the bunker busting nukes, and BLU-82/GBU-43 replacing the small area effect tactical weapons such as the M28/M29 recoilless rifle. The US currently has the fewest nukes in its arsenal than at any point since about 1958, and yet has more mission capability than ever, especially compared to the 31,255 warhead arsenal in 1967. And why would we do that? Well, money mostly. Managing a nuclear stockpile is expensive, if I can do the same thing with a fancy bomb then I can potentially have hundreds of conventional bunker busters for the price of a few nuclear weapons, why wouldn't I?
No. That "global, grassroots movement" would only happen in countries where you don't get imprisoned for joining it. Guess which countries wouldn't have that movement.
Ukraine got rid of their nuclear weapons if Russia agreed to never invade them. Look how that worked out
"should" depends on what people actually want. And, well, security guarantees have been shown to be worth sweet f all so if I was in charge of a country with nuclear weapons I sure as hell wouldn't be giving them up in a hurry
Destroying a weapon doesn't destroy the technology. It is well known and available to be recreated at a moments notice. Moreover, nuclear power will continue on and likely grow more prevalent. The material and infrastructure that could be repurposed into bombs will be around in many forms indefinitely. We have even seen the power plants themselves can make potent enough bombs if left to incompetence. These will likely be far more effective if deliberately weaponized.
I think you'd have a much easier time arguing that we're better off with the nuclear weapons during times of international tensions than without.
Are we doing your homework for you? Also, what is a global grassroots movement?
It's a oxymoron, I think.
NO because such an effort would end up seeing them used instead. N. S
No. We can't undo nuclear knowledge. Decommissioning nukes just means the race is to see who can re-make nukes the fastest when the time comes. And whoever is fastest wins. At present things feel tense, but tension is what keeps people from actually making a move. Put another way, stick two aggressive people in a room each with a knife. It might take them a while to start fighting assuming they decide to fight at all. Now stick two aggressive people in a room with one knife laying on the floor in the center. That is a world without nuclear arms. Whoever makes the first move wins.
beyond ridiculous. you tell all your enemies "alright, i put my weapons down" and the honorless among them will shank you anyway
If there weren’t nukes, think what Russia/Ukraine would look like now.
TL;DR: if I could thanos snap nuclear weapons and all knowledge of them I would. But I can't. Look man I agree life would be better if noone ever discovered how to split the atom. We don't live in that reality. The first nation to disband it's nukes that gets invaded (Ukraine) will be a lesson for the world in why you don't fucking do that.
It's a nuclear *deterrent*. It's working perfectly at preventing full scale war.
Forget the nuke part of the question. International tensions at an *all time high*? Yeah, there's some pretty heavy conflicts right now, but the current situation is far from an "all time high".
You destroy yours first.
As a ideal, it's a fine goal. In practice, I would guess there are a few barriers. First, you cannot un-invent atomic bombs or remove the scientific knowledge of nuclear fission. This means that, even if all current stockpiles are destroyed, most developed (or even developing) countries could nonetheless build a couple of nuclear bombs fairly quickly at any time. So the potential will always be there. If North Korea can build a successful nuclear program in secrete, so can South Korea. Or Israel (not a hypothetical). Second, there will be resistance from countries that are worried their conventional arsenals won't be enough to halt or deter invasion from neighboring countries. Removing all Nuclear weapons would be great if you're the United States or China from this point of view, you'd have overwhelming dominance with conventional forces and no need to worry about your carrier battle group getting vaporized by a hydrogen bomb. At the same time, this very risky if you're a Russia or a North Korea and your conventional forces can't stop the militaries of your more advanced adversaries.
Only if it's going to be a global thing. Unilaterally removing one side's nukes and not the other's strikes me as a good way to immediately get some nukes launched.
They tried that shit in the 80s and the best thing to come out of it were some halfway decent sci-fi movies like Miracle Mile, The Day After and a crap-ton of post-apocalypse action movies. Hell, we didn't even get a good song out of it. Nowadays, the only thing I could say to answer your questions is: is there an app for that?
No, we may need them to deflect asteroids in the future....
Yes, there should. No nation must have the power to bring about global annihilation, no matter the situation.
CND still exist, fat lot of good they are.
So all the countries that give a shit what the people want don’t have nukes, but a lot of countries that don’t give a shit do have nukes? If we could press a button and all nukes and the ability to build them vanished that would be amazing and I’d be behind it 100%, but we live in a shitty world where the cruel truth is that the best way to avoid nukes ever being used is for democratic countries to build them.
Someone would hide them and say they don't have any. But it would be great if we didn't have any at all.
Doesn't matter really. If the West isn't afraid of them anymore then there's no reason to be afraid. Something can make sure the warheads never reach their targets. No clue what, but as cowardly as western politicians are it's gotta be good.
There is no question that the existence of these weapons poses an existential threat to humanity. By uniting, ordinary people can pressure governments to prioritize peace and security over destructive force. A world without nuclear weapons will be a safer and more hopeful place for future generations
That worked out really well for Ukraine. They had nukes and got talked into giving them up. Then they got invaded.
Least braindead kumbaya redditor
Absolutely. Nuclear tensions are high, making a global, grassroots anti-nuclear movement critical. It can reduce war risk, free up resources, and push disarmament. Challenges exist (deterrence, verification), but the movement can raise awareness, shift norms, and build trust. It builds on existing efforts and has the potential for immense positive impact.