I think it was Oppenheimer, after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, who said that it was essential that these never be used again.

Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag. Russia was the second major power to build an atomic bomb (in its earlier incarnation as the Soviet Union). Now other countries, less worried about Mutually Assured Destruction, either have it, or are on their way.

For us to "go to zero" would be tantamount to suicide. The Soviet Union would not risk destroying their country by attacking us. Other countries, such as Iran, do not give us the same assurance.

We cannot undo what has been done, especially what can be done by countries like Iran and Pakistan, whose fundamentalism could guide them to Armageddon.

OK If we were to omit Russia and China from the equation. Explain to me why not still have our nuclear weapons. Let’s be realistic North Korea, Iran, Pakistan already have them. In the future so will Brazil and possibly other countries through out the world. We might have enough conventional bombs to bring them to their knees. But wars will not always be fought with conventional bombs. We live in an age where Oil, Information technology, and financial capital play a very important role to any military confrontation. In the financial world they say “Cash is King” in the military world Nuclear is king. We may not like nuclear weapons but they are a part of our new world.

What ever happened to nuclear doctrine? I really hope the film addresses all the theoretical objections to downsizing not just ours, but the current nuclear community's arsenal. That is, in the absence of nuclear arsenals, will we really be living in a safer world? There have been a number of articles (including on FP) that have dealt with this question. We must keep in mind that we are left with conventional warfare in the absence of the nuclear deterrent and I tend to think that this would make war much more likely among nations. It's true that there are wars going on today, but not between powerful countries with considerable arsenals (both nuclear and conventional arms). Upon considering the WW1 & 2 multipolar dynamic that rendered the arena of international relations much more volatile and unpredictable, how can we wish to return to a world where nations understand that the means by which they protect their interests have much more contained consequences thereby making leaders that much more willing to summon their armed forces to incur bloodshed? Nuclear arms are frightening devices that evoke images of death & apocalypse; however, we must put those fears into context and ask ourselves if these dangerous weapons have saved more lives than they've taken in the past half century. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Since the end of the Cold War, the international nuclear landscape has changed dramatically. The bipolar rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union has dissipated, and with it, the existential threat of global nuclear war. Today we approach a multipolar world, wherein even small state and non-state actors in possession of nuclear weapons could pose the greatest threat to American security. So while the specter of global nuclear war between the superpowers has diminished, the danger of a nuclear attack on the United States has increased. This changing nuclear landscape has been significantly shaped by two immediate and inextricably linked dangers: nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. While these nuclear security challenges have formed a more complex, more unpredictable, and more perilous world, the growth of a nonproliferation regime has also opened opportunities to cooperate in eliminating these nuclear threats.
To be sure, the nonproliferation regime’s success in eliminating the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism will largely depend on continued cooperation, especially in the creation of a sustainable and cohesive nuclear weapons policy. The United States and Russia, shareholders of 95% of the world’s nuclear warheads, are endowed with a distinct responsibility of leading, strengthening, and expanding the present nonproliferation regime. Yet, as stated in President Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review, to decisively overcome the “grave and growing” threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, the United States and other states must not only cooperate on policy and consolidate the regime, but also seek the “peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”.
Henry Kissinger said: “The danger posed by nuclear weapons is unprecedented. They should not be integrated into strategy as simply another more efficient explosive. We thus return to our original challenge: Our age has stolen the fire from the gods; can we confine it to peaceful purposes before it consumes us?".

Pakistan's nuclear bombs are meant for India only, because Pakistan learn't the real meaning of the machinations of India after India had trained Mukhti Bahani terrorists for years on Indian soil, sent them to East Pakistan to destablise it, and failing all that India INVADED and broke of East Pakistan from Pakistan.

Half of Pakistan was lost due to machinations of India.

India's blood thirst is very deep. While India was invading East Pakistan, India had also encouraged Russia and Afghanistan to invade West Pakistan from the Durand line to carve out, not only Bangladesh, but also Pashtoonistan from the remaining Pakistan.

Pakistan had to divide and redeploy its army to avoid the Indian-inspired-Russian/Afghan invasion at the same time.

In subsequent years India has openly threatened Pakistan again that it will cut-off Karachi, the very large metropolitan city of Pakistan, from the rest of the country. "K for K" is the expression used by the Indians meaning Karachi for Kashmir.

It is only the Pakistani nuclear bomb that has kept India at bay for the last few decades, but India's blood thirst has not dried up.

Iran does not have any nuclear bombs.

There is a huge double-standard when it comes to Iran in the West and America and it is clear to one and all who is really behind that double standard, a country with 400 illegal nuclear bombs called Jewish Israel. It is Israel with the nuclear bombs that is threatening to bomb Iran, without nuclear bombs, on a daily basis.

That I would like to get behind but as soon as you trot out that murdering, self-serving, incompetent , fascist thug Kissinger, I stop listening.