The Policy Blender

Let's get rid of all but 5 of them (and they may as well be 5 big ones), for each of the nuclear states. Either that, or get rid of all of them, and have all of the nuclear states invest their usual bomb budgets into a co-operative 'Star Wars' type project, so we can't fire them off any more, but we can take them out if they're launched by unofficial nuclear states.

More sophisticated answers anyone?

Keep the bomb.

The status quo works precisely because it's a MAD situation. That's MAD as in Mutually Assured Destruction, and that's sane. India and Pakistan have nukes but don't throw them at each other because it would be MAD to. They'd both be obliterated, and that would be pointless and expensive. The USA and the USSR had them throughout the Cold War, and despite loathing each other they never threw them around either. To do so would, of course, assure that they would each be punished in a way that the UN never could. So let's keep them and continue to never fire them, it's worked so far.

Then there's the loonies. North Korea, for example, is about as far from democracy as you can get, and also about as far from stable and predictable as you can get. Let's not let them have the bomb, they're nuts. If in the future, they seem less nuts and improve their human rights record and generally stop being sons of bitches, them maybe they can have the bomb, if they're good. But for now, no - no chance nutters.

Then there's the terrorists. They hate the US so much that they'd probably fling one at them if they could. Let's not let them have the bomb. Also, if they do sling one at the US, they probably know that there might be a few pointed at the Islamic nutcase regimes around the place (I'm looking at you, Iran, Syria). MADness again.

Besides, nukes are cool, like guns.

But let's be realistic here - if a nuke was fired in retaliation to an initial attack, then it would have to be targeted at a large civilian area. If, for example, we decided to nuke France, then the French would have to target London in retaliation - no point in blowing up Derbyshire. Even if fired upon, what sane, reasonable government is going to casually make a decision to destroy a city of several million people?

The way I see it, MAD doesn't work. Because if it came to it, the first assualt would either be from a rogue group, like your terrorists (what could we target in retaliation if Radical Muslims bombed London with nukes? Mecca?) or from a country (say the Russians) who said 'Oops, we didn't mean to do that. It's a good thing it only hit Coventry. Sorry, please don't nuke Moscow'. Or indeed, it would come from a country clever enough to not care whether you nuked its Moscow or not.

And we can't give a country the capability to knock nukes out of the sky unless we take away its ability to nuke. Otherwise they're immune to MAD.

I agree with the last bit though. Mushroom clouds rock.

no, I'm sticking to my guns here. MAD does work, because we're all still here.

Targeting Mecca is a good plan though. That'll show 'em.

And what are your thoughts on America developing a system that makes them immune from MAD?

well, someone had the bomb first...

Yes, and they dropped it on the Japanese.

Twice

I think that, depending on your viewpoint, one could say that about any of our leaders. Yours, ours, the three you list, all have done things that at least a minority consider to be illogical and unreasonable. I think that's part of my reasoning that, if there's a way of protecting ourselves when no-one officially has the bomb, then lets go with that. Not wanting to quote Bill Hicks too often, but this. anyway, from 'Fundamentalist Christians'. It's suddenly occurred to me, is it more than coincidence that 'Fundamentalist' contains the word 'mentalist'?

Admittedly, North Korea informing its population that Koreans will be the first to the Moon, more than thirty years after Apollo 11, is something pretty special. Perhaps there are objective criteria for what constitutes being a nutcase.

very funny link - haddn't considered the crosses point before!

I'd have been a great communist right up until they found I'd sold some space in the headquarters building to Starbucks... Oh and the wanting to let people have control over theier own lives/money/posessions etc