Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that particular statement. I don’t want to see kids growing up in a world with nuclear threats either.
The problem of course is that states like North Korea and Iran absolutely can’t be trusted. In fact, none but the western democracies and Israel, and maybe Japan and South Korea can be trusted, and those not terribly far.
But if an absolute no-cheat system can be set up to get rid of nuclear weapons, that would be a good thing. Extremely, extremely difficult. But I’m not prepared to say that it’s necessarily impossible. And if it could reasonably be done, it would be a very good thing.
And yes, a danger of course is what the poster in post 17 said. Unilateral disarmament isn’t anything we need.
If it could be done perfectly, I would agree wholeheartedly. I, like you (I assume) grew up during the pants-wetting stage of the Cold War, and I remember the fear.
But, as you say, several sitting at the nuclear table cannot be trusted. And think back - has any system anywhere not been subverted or evaded in under a week?
I would, perhaps, be inclined to add India to that short list, as they demonstrated remarkable forebearance in the face of a direct act of war against their nation, in the attack on their national legislature some years back. A commendable act on their part, and indicates to me that they may be trusted with nuclear weapons, at least at present...
the infowarrior
As horrible as a nuclear war may be, the fact is that since they were created, there has not been a war between major powers (going on 70 years). I would argue that Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars and Desert Storm, Iraqui Freedom, Afganistan were 1 sided wars.
Prior to that we had WWII, WWI, War of 1870, Crimean War, Napoleonic Wars, 7 Years War...
Anyway, you can make the arguement that nuclear weapons (especially in American hands) have kept the peace.
Just forget the Truman Administration’s screwy idea of handing all of them over to the UN after WWII.