Should nuclear weapons should be banned?

[good-person]

Nuclear weapons can cause mass destruction. We have witnessed how nuclear weapons destroyed Japan a long time ago. Many people believe that nuclear weapons should be banned and never be used. So, what do you think?

 

[Uncrowned]

It’s a tough question because nuclear weapons sit in this strange space where they’re both the most horrifying invention we’ve ever created and arguably one of the biggest reasons large‑scale wars have declined.

If you look at the long arc of history, wars between major powers are at an all‑time low. Even with the absolutely horrific war in Ukraine, the reason we aren’t seeing a full‑scale World War III, with mass bombings across Europe and millions dead, is largely because nuclear weapons exist. The threat of mutual destruction forces countries to think twice before escalating beyond a certain point. It’s an ugly kind of stability, but it has shaped the modern world.

So the question becomes: if we banned nuclear weapons, would we actually end up with more destruction? Without that deterrent, the old style of total war becomes possible again. Conventional wars between major powers have historically killed far more people than the two nuclear bombs ever did. It’s uncomfortable, but it’s part of the reality.

On the other hand, the idea of banning nukes sounds great in theory, but in practice, it’s almost impossible. No nation wants to be the first to disarm, and the odds of every nuclear‑armed country agreeing to, and actually following through on, complete disarmament are basically zero. Even if they signed something, the trust required for that kind of global cooperation just doesn’t exist.

In a perfect world, I’d love to see humanity step back from the ability to destroy itself. But realistically, we can’t un‑invent nuclear weapons, and we can’t force universal disarmament. So I end up wondering how many lives nuclear deterrence quietly saves every single day simply by preventing the kinds of wars that used to be routine.

It’s a grim balance, but it’s the one we’re living in.

 

[steel bat]

In 1994 Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons under the Budapest Memorandum in return for sovereignty agreed by Russia and guaranteed by the UK and the USA.

you can bet your boots Ukraine regrets that decision now -

- and with Trump sucking up to Putin, so much for the USA's guarantees.

Until every other country in the world has been proven to have given up their weapons, in Britain we would be foolish to give up our nuclear deterrent.


.

 

[Uncrowned]

In 1994 Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons under the Budapest Memorandum in return for sovereignty agreed by Russia and guaranteed by the UK and the USA.

you can bet your boots Ukraine regrets that decision now -

- and with Trump sucking up to Putin, so much for the USA's guarantees.

Until every other country in the world has been proven to have given up their weapons, in Britain we would be foolish to give up our nuclear deterrent.


.

I agree with you, and I think the last decade has given us a pretty clear demonstration of why nuclear deterrence still shapes global behavior. When you look at the conflicts happening right now, the pattern is hard to ignore: the countries being invaded, pressured, or coerced are almost always the ones without nuclear weapons, while the states doing the threatening are all nuclear‑armed and fully aware that no one is going to risk a direct confrontation with them.

Russia’s actions toward non‑nuclear neighbors, China’s pressure on surrounding territories, the U.S. changing leadership with bombs, and the way major powers can use force abroad without fear of retaliation all reinforce the same point: nuclear weapons create a shield that conventional militaries simply can’t overcome. That doesn’t make the situation good or moral, but it does explain why deterrence still works the way it does.

And that’s the real problem with imagining a world where everyone voluntarily gives up their arsenals. The countries that already feel vulnerable have no incentive to disarm, and the countries that benefit from their nuclear umbrella have even less reason to give it up. Breaking that cycle would require a level of trust and global stability that just doesn’t exist today.

In theory, a non‑nuclear world sounds ideal. In practice, I don’t see a realistic path where nations willingly put themselves at a strategic disadvantage, especially when current events keep reinforcing the opposite lesson.

 

[good-person]

I think that nuclear weapons should be banned in all countries to maintain the balance. Nuclear weapons can cause mass destruction and this is why it makes sense to ban them. Having said that, a nation possessing nuclear weapons always have a edge over others. We can see how Ukraine has suffered in the recent conflict.