Nuclear Weapons Free World?

It's a joke, or pipe dream as you put it. Sure, the US, Russia, and a few others could scrap their nuclear weapons. We're still a military to be reckoned with regardless of our nuclear arsenal and we could always rebuild it if necessary. What about Israel? Their nukes are the only reason they haven't been reduced to a crater. For all the talk from countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, the only reason they have yet to attack Israel is because they know they'll use those nukes if they're backed into a corner.

It's not going to come close to happening, in my opinion. There are too many unstable governments out there...too many leaders who promise one thing and do another...too much hatred and too much distrust. I also agree with what another responder has already posted...the only reason Israel still exists is because her nuclear capabilities have kept her enemies at bay.

I think a lot of time and resources were wasted on a meaningless act.

I always hesitate even putting my two cents in this kind of discussion because this is a topic about which I'm glad I don't have to make any decisions! My "heart" tells me a world free of nuclear weapons would be wonderful but I have a feeling it's just a pipe dream. I don't know, maybe just giving the idea lip service will be a good thing in a small way and maybe in time there can be more trust between nations. I fully understand the danger of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists or "rogue" nations but I also have a problem with "us" saying we have them and our allies have them but YOU don't have the right to have the same protection and deterrence for your nation. Annie

And, then, what about those who don't. This idea of a nuclear free world has been put forward for decades by the west and was only stopped by the Eastern Bloc during the cold war. As a result people in all kinds of opposing countries have them. Its basically the result of the Cold War that gave these opposing countries the opportunity to get nuclear weapons. This is an old sentiment and cannot happen now, not with North Korea and Iran playing the fool as they do.

Hi Lets look at the numbers 1. Russia 4500 + 2. USA 3000+ 3. France 300+ 4. UK 80+ 5. China 80+ 5. Israel 60+? 6. Pakistan/India ??? 7. N Korea ?? 8. Iran 0 - ?? A couple of key points, the first 5 are all PERMANENT members of the security council, and Israel with only a 7,000,000 population. So, I find it strange that all five permanent members, who all have veto powers at the UN, and victors of World War II,acquire a nuclear arsenal and then get an international treaty for non-proliferation, yet allowing Israel, a tiny country to possess nukes. Where is the fairness, and unhyprocritical stance here? The Non-profileration Treaty, also required states with nuclear weapons to dismantle them whilst not allowing other countries to have them. Are these countries doing enough to reduce their weapons. In the UK, until last night, they were talking of renewing Trident. But last night, they are still renewing Trident, but a 'gesture' reduction of 1 boat. Israel is still defying any attempts even to question it nuclear capability - the last US president who questioned and attempted to kerb Israel's nuclear program was John F Kennedy in September 1963. By November 1963, he was gunned down in Texas! The permanent five cannot have their cake and eat it, they must show the world that we are disarming and hold their negotians at a much faster pace and priority to encourage other nations not to pursue their own ambitions. Also they need to make sure nations do not feel threatened by the big nations. For example, North Korea was cooperating fully during the Clinton admistration, and as Madeline Albright went to North Korea, relations were warm. Pyonyang himself, has said, that the Clinton administration allowed us to feel at ease with the US, but Bush's agressive stance has forced the restart of our nuclear program. Also, they say, that if Saddam had a nuclear weapon, he would never would have been invaded. As for Iran, they have never been a friend of the West, yet they allow talking and other things to verify its nuclear ampbitions. Iran also wishes nuclear fuel not weapons, which the US flatly reject. Both North Korea and Iran have been talking to brick walls for the last few years, and we shall see if Obama is any different. As for the UN, well, as I said, five permanent members and their greatest ally, Israel all posess Nukes. This is in itself is a great obstacle to world peace and the abiltiy of the UN to be a credible champion. A more credible way forward would be to increase the powers of the General Assembly which is representative of more than 190 countries. Voting in these areas would equate the rich with the poor and allow a more even hand in world politics. This would allow the nuke free world to be realised alot sooner. And remember, nukes are not cheap, yet they are effective deterrent only for a period of time. Inevitably, once human nature goes beyond fear - nukes will be used. So, as Iran says, we do not desire nuclear weapons, for they serve no purpose. Clear solution, disarm proportionally eg 25% a year, on a sliding scale to 0 nukes. For those countries holding 1000 or more, there reduction should be double than that of others. Once this is seen to be done, other countries would find it hard to justify any breach of the non profileration treaty. Otherwise the treaty is hyprocritical. And if some rogue states decided to defy and attempt nuclear weapons, then there would be much more unity and condemnation of those states that practically that state would find it difficult to survive. Cheers

I believe it's just a action for forbidden other countries to research their own nukes. Nowadays, only if your country is powerful in martial, then you can be respected anywhere. Actually, every country will never stop underground researching .

i just hope that they can really stop those countries that are trying to hide their nuclear weapons or trying to develop one to surrender them. but i have no idea if this will help to accomplish any thing. it seems hard for them to stop any country if they will want to without resorting to any war. and i don't want any war to happen not on this life time specially.

This definitely sounds like an attractive idea although I don't know whether it's entirely feasible! It would be wonderful if the whole world could live in peace and not need nuclear weapons or any kind of weapons at all. However, I think that it would be a dangerous idea to give up nuclear weapons completely. Yes, by all means get rid of a lot of nuclear weapons but not all of them. I live in London for example and I ask the question, what would happen if we were attacked? What would happen if we were to suddenly suffer an invasion? We would not have the ability to defend ourselves. I think that we have to maintain cetain things in relation to military strength. I just think that the UN is there to act as peacemaker! I don't think they should get involved entirely but some of the ideas and options that they come up with should be taken into consideration. I don't think that there will ever be a time when the whole world suddenly becomes nuclear free, I'm thinking that these weapons will always be in existance although they may be significantly reduced. Andrew

The theory of nuke free world is very nice. I say it is the theory which is most important should come in to existance much in past. But it is not going to work in reality. Because all the countries are not trusting on others. So, this is good theory & useful to the world.It is very hard to make it reality.

Nice resolution and nice dream. It would be very helpful and beneficial for the people all over the world. The question is who's gonna follow it? I highly doubt that countries in power today would dismantle their prized nukes. Maybe they can just meet in an isolated island bringing their nukes and at the same time launch the damn things in outer space. Then all people should start hugging and loving for peace, oh I must be daydreaming lol:)

It's impossible. I doubt US would do it too. They'll surrender some and hide some. It's hard to surrender power. It's hard to give up security. And most of all, it's hard to trust.

I don't think the first person Obama will agree to it ... As a strong nation and facing serious treat from several countries it is necessary for America to make the world know that they have nuclear power for self protection ,,So naturally at any cost USA has to retain its nuclear power So they won't agree with it unless several others who now disagree agreesssssssss ...

Unfortunately this is more then likely going to be like any other idea from people in power. All say "yes lets do it!" but at the same time they all wonder in the back of there minds if the others will do it or if they should keep that one "just in case" History has proven on numerous occasions that regardless of what we plan to do thers alot of problems with working on a trust system. Which imho is all the UN can really consider its system. Now what about the countries that mainly keep themselves closed off to others in the world. (i do not intend to offend anyone with the following statement please take it for what it is). North Korea for instance is primarily closed off country with a large military base with a mostly unknown weaponries capacity. Assuming all does go according to plan are we to put aside the fact that countries such as these (again not picking on north korea they are just my jumping off point) could still be heavily armed while the others have disarmed themselves?

easier said than done. it is easy to preach but difficult to follow. and with so much distrust in the world - no one will take the first step.