Should all countries disarm their nuclear arsenal? I personally think that they should only keep a restricted amount for use in the most extreme circumstances. To back this up I am going to raise some points about events that have happened in the past regarding nuclear products e.g. power stations, weapons etc.
Firstly, why do countries have nuclear weapons? Countries have a large arsenal of nuclear weapons for the simple reason of DETERRENCE. This means that most countries only process nuclear weapons so they can deter any attack from an aggressor by threatening nuclear action. Will deterrence always work? Nobody knows if deterrence will always work because if people want deterrence to work there must be someone has the will to use nuclear weapons, which is undiluted. This means that if there is the choice to fire the nuclear weapons on to a country then you cannot go back on it. If you say you will fire the weapons then you will have to do it.
A nuclear war could start at any moment. For example if a nation misjudged an enemy movement they could start a nuclear war. The nations that went to war on January 1st 2002 will not be there on January 2nd 2002.
There have been disarmament talks for nearly 20 years, following the Cuba missile crisis of 1962. In spite of terrible wars in the Middle East and Vietnam and several nuclear alarms, he US and the Soviet Union seem to be edging towards security than threat.
The Test Ban Treaty of 1963 was followed by agreements on weapons in space, weapons on the seabed etc. The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) marked the highpoint of the process, which was called "Détente-. This was thought to be the agreement that would not be broken. Unfortunately this did not happen. Détente died/failed because the US Senate refused to ratify SALT 2 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Many people in these talks have suggested a freeze.
