It seems likely that the UK’s Trident nuclear system will be be renewed in 2016. The question of whether or not to update Britain’s creaking nuclear deterrence was a contentious one during the 2015 election campaign, with the Scottish National Party (SNP) fiercely opposed (not least because a key part of Trident involves a permanent submarine base on Scotland’s west coast). However, the unexpected Conservative victory means that the Tories will almost certainly be able to push through their manifesto pledge of updating Trident.

So, the United Kingdom and France will both remain nuclear powers, whilst Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands continue to participate in the NATO policy of nuclear weapons sharing with the United States. But are nuclear weapons a relic of the Cold War? Do they still have a place in the 21st Century?

Last year, when we interviewed General Philip M. Breedlove, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, we had a comment sent in by Theharmonicaman with a set of follow-up questions:

citizen_icon_180x180I think we should ask Breedlove what the role of nuclear weapons will be in the future, how NATO is going to defend against nuclear arms [and] how far a nuclear threat can influence major crises (like the crisis in the Ukraine right now) and limit the possibilities of conventional warfare today?

We recently had the opportunity to interview General Breedlove again, and we put this question to him for his reaction. What does he see as the future role of nuclear weapons?

To get another perspective, we also put Theharmonicaman’s question to Derek Johnson, Executive Director of Global Zero, a non-partisan campaign group working towards the phased elimination of nuclear weapons. How would he respond?

derek-johnsonI would say that not only do I see no role for nuclear weapons in the future, I think they serve no role today. Global security can’t be based on threats of mass destruction. And I think Russia and the Ukraine crisis is a perfect case-in-point.

Through NATO, the United States keeps almost 200 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. These weapons did nothing to prevent the crisis from developing in Ukraine, and they’re useless in addressing it.

So, I think the crisis in Ukraine a great example of the fact that these weapons can’t address the many challenges that we face in the 21st Century. We can’t use them to tackle threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare. None of these problems can be solved by nuclear weapons. In fact, their existence only magnifies the potential danger. Nuclear weapons are a barbaric tool of the 20th Century that have no place in the 21st.

Finally, we had a comment from Goncalo, who was concerned that nuclear weapons will inevitability fall into the hands of rogue states or terrorist groups. Can we stop states such as North Korea, or groups like Al-Qaeda or Islamic State, from obtaining nuclear weapons?

How would Derek Johnson respond?

derek-johnsonFortunately, in the case of non-state actors, nuclear weapons require such a significant financial and scientific infrastructure that they can’t make nuclear weapons on their own; it still takes a nation to develop them. So, the only way for non-state actors to get their hands on a bomb is either to acquire the nuclear material – highly-enriched uranium or plutonium – which is really difficult to produce, or to get their hands on a ready-made weapon.

There will always be a risk that nuclear weapons will be developed by another state or will be acquired in some way by non-state actors so long as those weapons exist. The only way to bring that risk down to zero is to drain the swamp, eliminating these weapons and all weapons-grade material.

No nuclear weapons program has ever gone undetected, not even the United States’. In a global zero future, if a so-called “rogue state” tries to develop nuclear weapons, they would be subjected to intense international isolation and pressure – as with Iran today – or even collective military action.

What do YOU think will be the future role of nuclear weapons? Are nuclear weapons a relic of the Cold War? Do they still have a place in the 21st Century? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

186 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    Ivan Burrows


    The same as its always been, to defend our country from our enemies.

    A friend today can be the enemy tomorrow.

  2. avatar
    Paul X

    Someone needs to inform Derek Johnson that the problem with trying to “drain the swamp” is firstly, that everyone must agree to have their plug pulled and second, that they have to be pulled at the same time.

    I really cannot see North Korea getting rid of it’s nukes and considering that country is already under “intense international isolation” what else does he suggest we do to make them give them up?

    One things for sure, a country run by a nutter who executes people with an anti-aircraft gun wont think twice about executing a nukes particularly if they are the only country left in the world that has them and know there is no retaliation

    The only worse situation is when the nutter who executes people with an anti-aircraft gun sells a nuclear weapon to a bunch of nutters who enjoy hacking peoples heads off, then the civilised worlds is really in deep trouble

  3. avatar
    Paul Z

    Someone needs to inform Derek Johnson that the problem with trying to “drain the swamp” is firstly, that everyone must agree to have their plug pulled and second, that they have to be pulled at the same time.

    I really cannot see North Korea getting rid of it’s nukes and considering that country is already under “intense international isolation” what else does he suggest we do to make them give them up?

    One things for sure, a country run by a nutter who executes people with an anti-aircraft gun wont think twice about executing a nukes particularly if they are the only country left in the world that has them and know there is no retaliation

    The only worse situation is when the nutter who executes people with an anti-aircraft gun sells a nuclear weapon to a bunch of nutters who enjoy hacking peoples heads off, then the civilised worlds is really in deep trouble

  4. avatar
    catherine benning

    Think about these issues regarding this huge ‘waste’ of our citizens money.

    1) We, the British, buy this weapon of mass destruction at huge costs from the USA. We are forever in debt from it.

    2) The contract with the USA does not allow us as a nation to use it without their permission.

    3) We cannot use it without their permission as it cannot operate without their assistance.

    4) Under those rules, what use is it to the British tax payers who foot the bill for this weapon of so called defence?

    5) Suppose the agressor against the British is the USA, how would we be able to use it in our defence against them without their assistance, should they attack us militarily? And how would we use it at all if they disagreed with our decision to do so against any perceived foe?

    6) How do we know what we are paying for works? Where can we test it? It could after all be empty torpedos.

    7) Without serious damage to the planet, it cannot be used at ever. So, this makes it futile.

    8) Under all those circumstances, why, when we have one million people lining up at food banks as they are hungry, and others here are suffering from starvation, in this our wealthy country, would we prefer an instrument of horror rather than feeding the very people who pay for it?

    And last but by no means least, this should be a call for a referendum, one that is honest and not fixed, after the truth is put to the nation in full disclosure.

    And as a side issue, does Switzerland or Norway have this weapon? Have they needed it?

    It smacks of the muscle end of the Mafia telling us they have a great new machine gun they can sell us for our protection, but, when we buy it from them at an exhorbitant price, we cannot fire it without they agree to let us do so or help us do it. Even though the most likely scenario is, that same Mafia will dedide we are no longer useful to their business aquisition.

    It is too ridiculous to discuss.

    • avatar
      George Yiannitsiotis

      1. Getting rid off nuclear weapons is a good idea, provided that all states that possess such weapons agree and fulfill such a target
      2. The UK has been the puppet of the USA in Europe for the last 70 years; the only lasting and preserved by the USA international agreement was the Atlantic pact between Roosvelt and Churchil (1940) keeping the USD at 2/3s of the GBP irrespectively of currency-market turmoils
      3. It seems odd to question the cost of the UK nuclear arsenal now, when it has become obsolete for both the UK and the USA
      4. Better the UK get rid off its nuclear arsenal before splitting apart (a Gorbachev-style leader urgently in need to implement the task)
      5. Then who is left as nuclear military power? the USA, Russia, France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India and N.Korea. Let’s see how persuasive the international community be in order to force them to abide by the demand set in paragraph (1) above.

  5. avatar
    Willemijn K

    Lets first of all delete one option: 1). using them.

    Now… whats left? 2). Leaving them without using them. Let the dust cover them and slowly forget about their existence till some terrorist group or an apocalyptically bad government does and we all regret it.

    This excluding “accidents”. A loose bolt dropping, a transport in the wrong plane, a fallen cup of coffee… Many “near” accidents have happened and are ALLOT less public knowledge then they should be.

    3). So, if keeping them is to risky, lets get rid of them!
    Great, now we only need to convince the biggest world powers to destroy their nicest toy. Why won’t they do it? Because they can’t be sure the other nation has done it and they don’t want to be left without any.

    The only way how we can fix that is long lasting peace and trust. Which is based on common sense, which is often rare in war-like situations. Projects like the UN and the EU and super-national organizations help.

    We have a long road ahead, but not an impossible one.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      @Willemijn K
      Cuckoo! Cuckoo, Cuckoo!

    • avatar
      EU reform- proactive

      @Tarquin- my dear island friend,

      thanks for a heartily laugh- imagining the hourly chime of a cuckoo clock reminding all <18 year old's & their sponsors to…… or… ……!

  6. avatar
    Ivan Burrows .

    The same as its always been, to defend our country from our enemies.

    A friend today can be the enemy tomorrow.

  7. avatar
    Matej Zaggy Zagorc

    We’re much greater enemies to ourselves than others can ever be

  8. avatar
    Ed Cocks

    Hopefully, deterrence. Unfortunately, I believe we’re going to see some small and medium-sized warheads exploded on populated targets in my lifetime though.

  9. avatar

    The supreme weapon shaped the world. Not a relic, but a meaning. The fear of thermo nuclear end is a “commodity” that can be traded or negotiated same as the false sense of world peace.

  10. avatar
    Joshua May

    They’ll become redundant I believe in the next few decades, technology will reach a point where nations defences will be so good that they’d become ineffective and expensive to maintain!

  11. avatar
    Kris Babůrek

    Same as today, with fear keep empires rule over those who are NOT allowed to make nuclear weapons.

  12. avatar
    Vinko Rajic

    To make all of us scared . Not many are going to get idea to solve conflict using war.

  13. avatar
    Liliana Ramsing

    Well we all hope they are not going to be used on Earth any longer…They should be reclycled for nuclear energy

  14. avatar
    Mário Baptista

    The role will be the same of ever, to ensure peace among nations. Although some nations like North Korea, Russia, Iran among others keep using it for evil political purposes.

  15. avatar
    Peter Redondeiro

    The problem about the nukes is the fact that they are available for maniacs like putin or dictators like kim jong un or jin xinping and others, that is the problem. Not UK, US, France and other responsible countries that have them and renew them in response to the rising threat of russias continuos incursion in european nato territory. UK, Us and other have proved for decades now how resposible they are while handling the nukes, being able to keep the world safe from threats, yes safe, not the other way around. This is the difference between the “responsible” countries and the unresponsable, power thirsty countries, like China, Russia, NK, Iran and others, that unlike the responsible countries, are only concerned about their own interests and purposes, no matter what, even if it puts in jeopardy the security of the entire world. ;)

  16. avatar
    Martynas Svartz

    all countries should disarm the nuclear weapons, if you cant defend with people your lands, thats mean your country dont worth the lands.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      You have to laugh at the stupidity of some comments

      Do you recall at the end of WW2 how well the Japanese (who were some of the the most fanatical fighters there was) managed to defend Hiroshima?

  17. avatar
    Richard Osborne

    The naievety here beggars belief. Do people honestly believe that if a state has wmds that they’ll destroy them because some international body tells them too? I’d like to meet these people, I really would. I’d shake them by the hand and say thank them for taking the first step in removing themselves from the gene pool.

    • avatar

      Well, thank God, Ukraine hasn’t kept theirs. They have already used white phosphorus bombs (prohibited by Geneva convention) in Eastern Ukraine…

  18. avatar
    Ryan Lee

    Defence secretary has now even admitted that they don’t work as a deterrent so scrap them! You can’t achieve peace through war.

  19. avatar
    Alessandro Mogavero

    I believe that the threat of a nuclear war is a very useful deterrent for war itself. It has worked from the WWII to now.
    If we get rid of all the nuclear weapons in Europe nothing will stop other nations to bombard us.

  20. avatar
    EU reform- proactive

    A good diplomatic start was made with the NTP in 1970- when the EU not even existed! Article VI unequivocally states the aim to accomplish the total elimination of ‘their’ (signatories) nuclear arsenal. That should be the future role!

    But, regretfully it’s once more “diplomacy in delayed action” between the only and all important players- US & Russia.

  21. avatar
    Paul X

    The day will come when a bunch of unstable nutters in the middle east will get their hands on a WMD
    No longer will they just have to content themselves with simply hacking peoples heads off or burning them in cages, they will now be able to incinerate whole cities. And have no doubt, unlike the current (generally) more responsible holders of WMD, they will have no hesitation in using them. Most of then can’t wait to meet Allah (and the promised 40 virgins) and personally I would much prefer to be in a country that can swiftly help them on their way before they get the chance to inflict a WMD on anyone else

  22. avatar
    Susan MacKenzie

    It is all about profit. In this case for the nuclear industry. The deterrence argument is bull-shit.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      I don’t think Nuclear weapons are one of the biggest earners for the defence industry, there is hardly a large turn over is there?

  23. avatar

    There’s no real deterrence from nukes themselves as the nuclear states have themselves the top armies of the world today and have no actual need for those weapons.

    I can’t see any ‘normal state’ (to single out North Korea) nuking anyone else (not even the loud-barking Iran, should they ever achieve that capability). Even if NK would nuke someone (although if their leader is as crazy as the media portrays him, why hasn’t he done so already?) I can’t see anyone sane trying to make things worse on a planetary level by using more nukes. No, even their dismantling doesn’t require that all do it at the same time. It’s a big bluff that has been called out already.

    Nobody except the US put their nuclear force on alert during the Ukrainian crisis (and even then, ‘alert’ meant just loading some weapons as it sometimes happens during exercises) and it did nothing to deter those events.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      “I can’t see anyone sane trying to make things worse on a planetary level by using more nukes”
      Do you see any sanity in what Islamic State do?
      They are already routinely using chemical weapons, something that has been outlawed by all but 4 or 5 of the countries on the planet so you can rest assured if they ever get hold of a nuke they will certainly use it.
      If they do then the only certain way of stopping them using it is to get in first and lay waste to them, cant see anybody else on the planet shedding a tear for them…

  24. avatar
    Vinko Rajic

    I think they are good , people are scared to start conflict but they can become very dangerous if terrorists get them .

  25. avatar
    Loukas Kontokostopoulos

    after using all these nuclears in a war,will there even be a world left in case some manage to survive?reading about all those numbers of nukes existing I think it’s enough to blow the whole planet in to stardust…

  26. avatar
    Dennis Rakar

    Is Putin planning to bring about any sort of extermination? Because arming more missiles just sounds shocking

  27. avatar
    Ivan Krastev

    We humans are strange people. If we don’t have problems we do everything to challenge it. If nothing bothers us from outside we are depressed and that really bothering us inside. I think we have extremely need to have more psychological and psychotherapeutic meetings and consultings really often. It should start from first school classes. Because the live is too short to be waste for such a stupid things as fear from nuclear war and worse of that human killing.

  28. avatar
    Thomas Beavitt

    Putin is a realist. He knows that if he shows a moment of weakness, his enemies will show no mercy.

  29. avatar
    Steve Webster

    Your man gets more nukes, he’s a realist ~ the other side does it, they’re warmongers ~ so it goes …

  30. avatar
    Thomas Beavitt

    So, let’s rewind to the 1930s – at a time when nuclear weapons were still a twinkle in the eye of the scientists that conceived them and almost nobody was imagining the subsequent events that took place Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Could it have been done differently? Maybe. But it wasn’t. Now the logic of MAD is what prevents wannabe Hitlers and Stalins from imposing their “final solutions” on the rest of us. So we have to live with it. Or?

  31. avatar
    Geoffrey Howard

    If there is a future with nuclear weapons…then there is no future for humanity. Think about it.

  32. avatar
    Steve Webster

    Absolutely. And apparently the question remains ~ how many times do we want to be able to blow them up ?? Back in the golden age of MAD to which we may be returning it was called the capability to bounce the rubble .. same as it ever was ~ mine’s bigger than yours

  33. avatar
    Carolina Muro Rosa

    Anybody that thinks of getting armed with nuclear weapons is threatening life on the whole planet. No need for it.

  34. avatar
    Thomas Beavitt

    Speaking as a Scot who is currently living and working in Russia, it’s obvious to me that there is no “us” and “them”. I respect and appreciate President Putin’s intelligent leadership. It’s idiotic to imply that the Russian government is any more of a threat to peace than its western counterparts. Given the existence of nuclear weapons, it becomes all the more necessary to engage in genuine dialogue and avoid the language of demonisation.

    • avatar
      Geoffrey Graham

      I’d just like to second this comment. Jaw jaw is still better than war war, and NATO has been very aggressive in increasing it’s presence on a continual Eastward path, and we would do well to try to bring Russia back into the family of European nations, although probably not the EU, although that’s another question again.

  35. avatar
    Vincent Kleijn

    to end the world :-) at least all our issues are gone forever and there’s no more war. Just microbes left to start a whole new world….

  36. avatar
    Steve Webster

    Cameron is a realist. He knows if he shows a moment of weakness, his enemies will show no mercy ~ what do you think Thomas Beavitt ~ a convincing argument for Trident ?

  37. avatar
    Alin Ruxandariu

    how I see things, neuclear weapons will have the same role as before. This role is political and economical stability, having nuclear weapons implements some sort of balance between actors. Because the mentality is something like ” I won’t if you won’t” so…in order to have greater powers in balance you have to make them affraid of eachother. Let them have nuclear bombs and whatnot…:-??

  38. avatar
    Marco Franck

    nuke them quickly before they nuke you. EU again unprepared believes we live in a world of peace, green politicians speaking garbage against nukes until one day they get one on their heads.
    EU NATO be prepared and ARMY STRONG or be defeated in 24 hours by the Russians. WAKE UP EU

  39. avatar
    Colin O Gorman

    Dumb headline there’s no future in nuclear weapons they shouldn’t even exist but alas there’s no limit to the the stupidity of mankind

  40. avatar
    Paolo Pedone

    Perhaps…, USA has to gain in NATO the Sweden people building some new nuclear points , answering with an egual action and more more hard rockets ( ’till death of mr. Putin )…! This is terrible , but now there isn’t. another a different thing ..!!! The little ” red/black ” Czar is beginning too crazy…Russian Army has just empted her deep Artic sea with hundred of damned nuclear rockets ( covered by glaces and stone ).., and the day after..??? We can’t be quiet…!!!

  41. avatar
    Rui Duarte

    After the fall of the wall, we failed to treat the russians with a minimum of dignitity. In many fundamental ways, we commited the very same mistakes than in the Versailles Treaty.

  42. avatar

    We all are in big trouble if nuclear weapons will be used in future

  43. avatar
    Eva Benko Zoltan

    There goes the power produsing weapons to make money and finally their greed will break the sack, not only for them but for the whole population.

    • avatar
      George Yiannitsiotis

      For Greeks is irrelevant; we face totalitarianism in our own country imposed by the “democratic” EU…

  44. avatar
    Stephen Pockley

    Ofcourse we will renew them it’s our countries defence .
    Got to love having Nukes in your weapons collection .

  45. avatar
    David Wallington

    According to Major General Patrick Cordingley, speaking on rt’s “Going Underground” shown on July 13th 2015, only the saceur (Mr breedlove) can give the “authority” to British trident submarine personnel to launch it’s nuclear missiles. As a very concerned British citizen, could Mr Breedlove be asked exactly what form this authority takes? Is it verbal, or is it some kind of launch code system? What happens if the weapons engineering officer presses the button (pulls the trigger) without authorisation? Does the missile(s) fire out of the submarine anyway, or do they stay in the tubes? If they can be launched, do they go where the crew want them to go or do they go on an unplanned trajectory? The British people deserve to know!

  46. avatar
    Geoffrey Graham

    As long as nation states exist they will do so under conditions of competition. Recognising this, their leaders make rational decisions to maximise their potential for the greatest benefit to their people, including security and access to resources. Hating nuclear weapons is also rational, but pretending that competing actors will be able to unilaterally disarm them under real world conditions is irresponsible. Russia will see a need for nuclear weapons to defend itself against a continuous eastward push by NATO and also against central Asian states that may soon become rich through oil. As long as Russia needs these weapons, so does Western Europe, as does China. Finally, the USA will never give up their weapons, or their massive conventional arms superiority. Therefore everyone else needs something to stay in the game. The biggest concern (as raised by another commentator) is that the UKs deterrent is not, in fact, independent of the USA. We need more nuclear capability (if not more nuclear weapons) rather than less.

    • avatar
      David Wallington

      I think we should have more (truly independent, of course) nuclear missiles. If we carry on at the rate of downgrading we are now, we will have no missiles. Other nuclear states will have hundreds of bombs, though. Silo, SLBM’s or air drop one’s (all three, in some cases). Blair cancelled missile tubes that were on order when he came to power, banned our airdrop atom bombs (surely, these WERE independent) reduced the number again of missiles (in 2003, if memory serves) and when parliament was dissolved in 2010, (so no vote could be taken, nor proper, informed debate) Brown sold the government stake in Aldermaston to an American company!! At least, before, we could say the warheads were ours. We can’t now. I recall the Conservative response was we have”concerns”. This was said on the report by the journalist who reported the story, clearly no-one could be bothered to do a piece to camera from any of the parties (which tells you how seriously they really take the issue). The subject may have been brought up in parliament, but I have watched many defence and prime minister’s questions (not all) and I didn’t see it addressed by anyone. BTW, the BBC don’t put defence questions on the iPlayer anymore-don’t know why. You’d think as a PUBLIC SERVICE broadcaster they would feel some duty to inform about such important (and expensive) things. Why hasn’t there been a documentary about trident from them, or any of our news providers? ” we don’t think we actually have control over those missiles we have that costs the taxpayer billions of pounds, it’s a defence sham, but, sod it, let’s not report that, much too difficult. What’s Pippa Middleton wearing today? ” Dear, oh dear. Interesting point, too. Did you know it’s American nuclear defence policy to use a nuclear first strike on a nuclear state? Therefore, they could nuke us, knowing full well we couldn’t attack them as they control our missiles anyway. Now do people see the folly of the status quo! Our politicians really need to be accountable on this subject, it’s too important. I started a petition on the old government e-petition website, calling for a true British independently operational nuclear deterrent, and got a grand total of four “signatures” (there may have been more because I didn’t see it on the last day). Those of us who now know the trident debacle really should be informing those around us, and contacting all our MP’s to hold them to account.

  47. avatar
    Dan Florin

    No, they are not a relic, they are, as far as we know now, the most powerful and awful invention of mass destruction. And they’re very modern too… See the nuclear deal on Iran.

  48. avatar
    Mike Chambers

    Everyone knows the dangers of nuclear weapons. They are a relic of the cold war. They have no place in the 21st century.

  49. avatar
    Marijus Stasiulis

    I think if all countries had nuclear ballistic weapons, then there would be no real wars.
    BTW Ukraine gave all nukes to Russia, so now they having problems…

  50. avatar
    Nigel Daff

    Yes as crazy as it sounds – in a way YES – we should be at the table discussing how to ban nuclear weapons world wide BUT it will never happen because too many will never trust the over completely

  51. avatar
    σαντυ αλεξανδρου

    The best.Let them use them.I’m going for a swim.It’s summer.Why do you ask ridiculous questions?The proper question would be.What kind of a suntan do you want?

  52. avatar

    What will be the future role of nuclear weapons?
    What I fear? Exactly that, weapons! And that is very scary.
    What I hope? Nothing! No place in humanity! A piece of history!

  53. avatar
    Nelson Tony

    Disse dio al suo discepolo sai discepolo di ke sn capace io nemeno telo immagini disse il discepolo di di supremo caro fedele nn voglio uscire allo scoperto voglio continuare per un po a far tenere questo tipo di skema mentale ai prodi ho cercato caro mio di far capire ma senbrano ottusi occapito supremo ti ricordi 10,000 di anni fa quando avevamo licenziato tutte le guardie del mondo tolsi pure la moneta e lascia ke i prodi si skannassero come dei topi no supremo nn farlo caro sto per perdere la pazienza discepolo a me piaceva la vita ke facevo con una conpagnia a far baldoria tutto il giorno e be dire ke se nn sara piu cosi esco dalla tana e sincifazzu fiki insugunnu tottu au fasciu kenze puntu de riferimentu a totus cavie telecomandate del cazzo ok supremo aviso il linbo

  54. avatar
    Tomasz Mazurek

    After what happened at Ukraine no nation ever in future will hand over their nuclear arsenal for western (British or US) security assurance. The West shows very clear – do you want to be safe you have to be in possesion of nuclear warheads. In my opinion central European countries should start their own nuclear projects to create mass destruction weapon as detterent to all our enemies.

  55. avatar
    Max Berre

    If you ask me, I’d say that MAD never really went away. With that said, it would appear that for the most part, nuclear weapons haven’t ever played any other role (since 1946 anyways)

  56. avatar
    Kostas Tsotsanis

    It is well known today that each nation is immature to use nuclear energy in a valuable and non-harming way. So the answer is simple: Start inversting in other alternative options, start investing in energy recycling

  57. avatar
    Andre Lopes

    Nuclear bomba are mostly like Human stupidity. You will never get rifle of that… Neither stupidity neither nuclear (for whatever they justify)

  58. avatar
    Marco Franck

    nuke whoever threatens, looking at the scenery today I think we will be surprised how it is inevitable we will end up using it to save our planetary advanced human kinds versus extreme conditioned primitive and dangerous races. It is them or us. Coexisting in this jungle is a matter of survival.

  59. avatar
    James Campbell

    I’m British and hate the fact that we have nuclear weapons. The logic of nuclear deterrence is totally lacking. The cost is extortionate. The possibility of destroying millions of innocent people is morally cancerous to our nation. The opposition of nuclear powers to disarmament at the recent Vienna talks was shameful.

  60. avatar
    Rick Wilmot

    They only mean death, disease and Mutually Assured Destruction! (MAD).What sort of species are we???

  61. avatar
    Ariste Arvanitides

    As long as the SOFT KILL does not work for the elite against the populations of the world, and given that diplomacy has turned into a game of threats and dishonesty of the parties involved, nuclear weapons will always be part of the program for the human race. One idiot will cause mass destruction.

  62. avatar
    Alex Tselentis

    Nuclear weapons should never have been created in the first place, the world over needs to declare simply having them the most serious of serious crime.

  63. avatar
    Dobromir Panchev

    Einstein said: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”. So here is the role of the nuclear weapons – destroy all the achievements of the human race in the last two thousand years, and maybe the human race.

  64. avatar
    Lamborghini P.

    Not completely, because they now have also it some countries of the Third World.

  65. avatar
    Jean-Jacques Eiza Lauture Descayrac

    All nuclears arms should be dismantle worldwide. Investments for international coalition to ban these arms are worth. As We are concerned about our european social welfare and climate change (cop21), we should be concerned about future generation life and the consequences of any nuclear risk.

  66. avatar
    Nando Aidos

    They are simply disgusting, destructive, despicable human creations. The result of a “I have a bigger stick than you” endless race.
    Just as we are trying to move to “renewable energies” we should also be moving to a “nuclear free” world.

  67. avatar

    They are simply disgusting, destructive, despicable human creations. The result of a “I have a bigger stick than you” endless race.
    Just as we are trying to move to “renewable energies” we should also be moving to a “nuclear free” world.
    What will be the future? It depends on our own decisions, doesn’t it?

  68. avatar
    Peter O

    Nuks can never be used since the damage is irreversible for the planet. The user must first escape to another planet. This madness has no meaning so production and maintenance should be abandoned. War psychics can enjoy killing them selfs with conventional weapons.

  69. avatar
    Dave Whelan

    There should be no nuclear weapons, but wouldn’t want a situation where we haven’t got any but our potential enemies have

  70. avatar
    Irena Leibovici

    The future of thr Nuclear Weapons is brilliant, they will develop them more and more with the benediction with all the big powers! Can you ask what is the future of the EUROPEANS? Back to ZERO, mainly today, with the Iranina deal!

  71. avatar
    Alex Bell

    Just because it’s 21 century, the doesn’t mean the physics behind how an atom bomb works has changed lol they still destroy the same way and if anyone sees benefit from such destruction to an enemy, then they’ll use them.

  72. avatar
    Miguel Silva

    ET’s will buy them as antiques for their museums, that if we don’t fuking blow them in our heads before.

  73. avatar
    Omar Avelar

    Since an enemy can you use it against us…. we need them to deter any agressor… any nation that is now our friend could later be an enemy and pulverise us if we’re not ready

  74. avatar
    George muntu

    A civilization people? Who have prenty of stockpiles of nuclear war heads? These weapons are not aiming at destroying animal but people, even those who producing them. It’s a self destructive. We need a world nuclear free.

  75. avatar
    Jane Tse

    Why should Britain and France give up their nuclear weapon when proliferation continue, when nuclear threat is becoming more real than before and irrational leaders of small and big countries can press the buttons anytime. However, this does not mean that Britain and France cannot initiate a new round of negotiation so as to create a more peaceful environment and opportunity for dialogues.

  76. avatar
    Bryan Swanson

    They have a purpose and that is to protect our country and our allies country from our enemies and if aliens come to protect ourselves from them. Nuclear energy is not always made it can be found in the earth as well.

  77. avatar

    What I’m getting from this is that, to the nuclear countries of the world, nukes are their security blankets and if we try to take them away, they will react negatively, but they want to use them as a force of protection, protecting people by using a weapon that is more dangerous, it has pro’s and con’s but I want to try to remain neutral here.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.