Bill what is your mob planning to do about the alleged 75-100 nukes controlled by the Pakistan Government, but may soon fall into the hand of Taliban? Ditto North Korea, Iran, Israel etc.

The answer is clear: bugger all

I hear where you're all coming from - a position of hopelessness.

ICAN calls for nuclear abolition by ALL nuclear states. We need to look at:

a) the alternative to nuclear weapons abolition - likely future use of such unimaginable weapons of terror, with any use also risking global escalation.

b) What a Nuclear Weapons Convention actually would mean. To:
1. Take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert/launch on warning status
2. Remove nuclear weapons from deployment
3. Remove the warheads from their delivery vehicles
4. Disable the warheads by removing their explosive pits
5. Place the fissile material under United Nations control.
- All including processes of verification.
See
http://www.icanw.org/nuclear-weapons-convention
including the PDF summary and draft text.

“Anti-nuclear civil resistance is the right of every citizen of this planet. For the nuclear threat, attacking as it does every core concept of human rights, calls for urgent and universal action for its prevention.”
- Judge Christopher Weeramantry, former Vice-President of the International Court of Justice and member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Advisory Council.

Atom 1

It is not a question of, “a position of hopelessness.” Many years ago when I was introduced to the story of Don Quixote and his habit of tilting at windmills; I thought how silly can anyone be. My position is realism.

Reality tells me that you can not abolish nuclear weapons - it may be desirable it is just not possible. Next you suggest placing fissile material in the hands of the UN which in my view is a dysfunctional organisation.

I note a serious omission in your list; the possibility of fabricating fuel rods for nuclear power reactors, using fissile material surplus to military requirements

As long as we use uranium, we'll have nuclear weapons. There'll always be guns as long as there's gunpowder. Ideal worlds don't exist in ideological worlds, they are incompatible. With the two Japan bombs, it was either that or invade, creating many more casualties on both sides.

It's the thought of the devastating reach of a nuclear explosion, which is the reason they haven't been used. Along with probable retaliation from a number of sources, so the scale of damage has been the deterrent. They'll be used, it's the degree which will matter. Many old soviet states now have control over missiles based in their countries, so there are many countries with or have access to nukes. Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya, all believed to have at least one nuclear bomb and let's no forget India and the Chinese. The Russians gave away heaps to their various allies at different times, so who knows who has or hasn't got them.

Many people don't realise Australia hosted British nuclear missiles back in the late 1950's, 60's and early 70's based outside Darwin. There will be a nuclear free world, when nuclear technology becomes redundant. Until then, it's a guessing game.

Maybe a nuclear winter, will counter act global warming and take care of over population. Let's hope we don't find out.

Antigreen ("Reality tells me that you can not abolish nuclear weapons - it may be desirable it is just not possible")
1. Your "reality" is based only on the past.
2. "Desirable" is trumped by "NECESSARY" - necessary to ensure prevention of nuclear annihilation.

("I note a serious omission in your list; the possibility of fabricating fuel rods for nuclear power reactors, using fissile material surplus to military requirements")
I refer you to my second post:
"... and to boycott [and lobby] all who build, design, test, store, fuel or maintain such weapons and their delivery systems."