• We need to.

    Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad. Bombs are bad.

  • Yes because.... Earth.

    Duh, don't you guys want the earth to continue on. These bombs can put a total stop to man kind. If one of those bomb moves the earth the littlest bit in the solar system, that will change to way we move around in the universe forever. Every single thing will totally change.

  • Nuclear weapons are

    Extremely harmful. It's literally destroyed a city in Japan, and you think it's atomic bomb, but it is part of the nuclear weapons. Is should be banned if we don't want to see the end of the world, everywhere distroyed, which is the only planet we can live, earth, so we should ban nuclear weapons

  • Yes I protest

    God gave earth as a gift to us . Deadly weapons like nuke will destroy the earth's life and habitat. We need to use technology in a way which benefit us and all the life in the earth. So I disagree in using nuke or such type weapon. Thank you

  • Yes I protest

    God gave earth as a gift to us . Deadly weapons like nuke will destroy the earth's life and habitat. We need to use technology in a way which benefit us and all the life in the earth. So I disagree in using nuke or such type weapon. Thank you

  • Cons weigh out pros

    I know there may be some reasoning to having nuclear weapons but the cons outweigh the pros which is always better in a situation. There are other solutions for self defense but definitely more harm is done than there should be. I mean, we need to put "smart" sanctions around North Korea because they've been doing nuclear weapon testing! I just think it's sad we have to use something that could wipe out the human race. It's honestly childish that there's still such thing as a nuclear war.

  • Waste of money.

    It is no doubt nuclear weapons require a large amount of money. There are better alternatives to spend that money. It could be used to give better lives for civilians in terms of housing, health and education. North Korea would have been a prosperous country without the nuclear weapons projects.

  • Death will increase

    We all know that nukes are a risky thing to play with it can eradicate a single race on earth . There is no point in violence if we can not control of it if weapons fall in any wrong hands it could end life as we know it that is why.

  • If we keep having Nuclear Weapons we will eventually have a war.

    The fact is we have gotten lucky in the past with close to nuclear war occasions predominantly by accidents. Too much money is wasted through fear of others, it's stupid that humanity is like this. This money could be sent to more useful projects like science or improving healthcare in countries. The UN could send people to carefully watch countries to make sure nuclear programmes do not take place such as the programme in Iran right now.

    The longer we keep nuclear weapon there will always be the chance there will be a nuclear war.

  • What do we need nuclear weapons for? To kill each others? We are not each others' enemies.

    As human beings, we are a whole. Most wars begin when people have different opinions and they disagree over each other. It seems silly to me that WW2 started just because a group of people had a certain opinion and tried to force everyone else to follow what they believe in. With that money, we can use it on education instead. Humans will be more educated and that's really how society improves, not bombing or killing.

  • Warfare. That is all I'm gonna say

    They end wars, so why ban them? I mean.. As long as we keep them under control we should be perfectly fine.. But then again, well.. Remember Hiroshima, japan? Yeah.. That's all I need to say. Anyways that's my opinion, I'd like to hear yours however if you're cool with it...

  • The Other Countries won't pay attention to a ban

    Other countries would't follow a ban, we try to stop North Korea but will they ever stop through any means other than military force, soft power only works when we are the main supplier for the country we aren't for the entire world. It would be taken as a sign of weakness to others nations and provoke those who wish to destroy America

  • Mistrust would cause the ban to not fall through.

    It too much of a temptation to declare a global ban on a weapon that can level cities within minutes and expect everyone to play by the rules. Even powerful countries like China and the U.S wouldn't agree to it either because they would rather be safe then sorry and have those device at hand then naively hope there won't be a person who would secretly create for there own gain.

  • Not everyone will oblige

    While a world without nuclear weapons would be great, and it might be possible to convince major superpowers like Russia, the US, and parts of Europe to relinquish their nukes, it doesn't seem possible that every country would agree, and certainly North Korea wouldn't want to get rid of theirs, and if every other country didn't have nukes, NK would have the largest nuclear arsenal ib the world, something no one wants.

  • Nuclear Weapons are band.

    The issue of atomic missiles. Nuclear weapons can already be proved as internationally illegal as a chemical weapon. The common defense to the world however states that Atomic missile also are a known defense against asteroids. Their effectiveness although questionable and open for debate. The alternatives are limited.

    The General Understanding is that One Nation alone is incapable to maintain an arsenal of Ballistic missiles in defense of the world safely alone due to the expense of safe storage.
    So Nuclear Weapons are already band under the description of chemical weapon.

  • Nukes deter large scale wars

    No sane leader of any nation would wish to see his own nation obliterated. This is why nukes, with their insane destructive power, are the most effective tool to fend off countries from aggressively starting invasive wars. In fact, it is likely that the possession of nukes by the Soviets and the Americans was what had prevented the "cold" war from turning into a "hot" war. Both sides were extremely hesitant to attack each other because of their mutually assured destruction. Without such weapons, the story might have been much different, for leaders on both sides, were they to initiate a war likely located thousands of miles away, would have little fear for any destruction to come upon themselves or to any densely populated regions. And as such, invading other countries would be considered games to politicians, as they sit far back and watch their soldiers march on while feeling no self-danger. This was how the world wars begun — when there are no immense destructive pressures on the leaders, people like Hitler will start war. Nuclear weapons would have stopped this, just look how fast Japan surrendered after the creation of the atomic bomb.

  • We Need To Stop Stop With War

    So Yeah We Need To Ban Nuclear Bombs Not Only That We Need To With War I'm Not Saying Only The US But Every Where So I Say Yes We Need to Stop all Bombs And War So That is What I Have To Say About That . . .

  • Nuclear weapons cause peace between countries.

    Yes, nuclear weapons are scary and all but there is one massive benefits in having them, it stops or prevents other countries fighting with you. If there were no nuclear weapons, countries would wage war with each other and not be bothered having their cities annhiliated by nukes. So, the weapons that have caused division between so much countries, have also contributed to world peace and better diplomatic relationships.

  • We would not be able to make anyone do it and we would put ourselves at risk

    If we try to make our allies with nuclear weapons give those up, we could lose them as an ally and we would make more enemies. If someone is not our ally in the first place what reason would they have to listen to us? We would have gotten rid of the biggest bargaining chip we have. If someone with a water pistol walked up to a person with a rocket launcher and the water pistol person told the person with the rocket launcher to get rid of it or they would fight them, not only would the person with the rocket launcher refuse, the person with the water pistol would be in grave danger and would not last that long if they were to fight. Plus, we would put ourselves at risk of any other nation that has a nuclear weapon the second we get rid of them, and we would have no way of defending ourselves. We don't even need to use nuclear missiles for them to protect us. The very knowledge that we have them is often quite enough to deter many attacks. Once we lose that protection our downfall is not only likely, it is guaranteed. This is becoming even more of a threat with North Korea developing their nuclear missiles. We lose our own missiles we will not be able to stop North Korea, or anyone else with nuclear missiles who has a grudge with us.

  • Everyone else first

    As long as someone else has them America needs to have those of it's own. We can't be left in a state of vulnerability. I don't foresee anyone else putting this type of ban on these weapons. Until such a ban happens everywhere else we can't afford to get rid of them.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.