It might be well done, but it is utterly absurd. The saying that the "world without the nuclear weapons is safer" is the same as saying that "the household without a weapon is safer". Well it is not.
If you want to live in a peace you have to be prepared for war. The peace requires will on both sides, the war needs only the will of one side. The nuclear weaponry is the only system that keeps Russia in strategic position. They will not abandon them. For the Israel it is probably the only deterrent that somehow keeps them from full scale wars almost constantly. Generally the same situation applies to the West: If it was not "passive backing by nukes" the Arabs countries would be very happy to use chemical weapons.
Everyone is aware of the fact that superpowers use nukes basically only as a deterrent. This holds them back because without such backing they would be much more inclined to go for a war. Everyone is aware of the fact that the terrorist and fanatics will try to get a nuke (even dirty one) anyway. Removal of nukes will not stop them from trying to reach similar weapons.
Advanced countries will get NO advantage by complete nuclear disarmament. It removes them a lot of options and will make their armies more expensive to maintain. For some countries like Israel it would be very dangerous to do so. The only advantage would be for those countries who do not have such weaponry. It would strengthen their positions greatly.
Limitation and stopping proliferation of nuclear weapons - yes. Removal - no. That would be total absurd green leftist activist nonsense. But remember - these folks have been always sponsored "by the others" to make their countries weak. It is their job to spread fear and lies as usual.
If you want to live in a peace you have to be prepared for war. The peace requires will on both sides, the war needs only the will of one side. The nuclear weaponry is the only system that keeps Russia in strategic position. They will not abandon them. For the Israel it is probably the only deterrent that somehow keeps them from full scale wars almost constantly. Generally the same situation applies to the West: If it was not "passive backing by nukes" the Arabs countries would be very happy to use chemical weapons.
Everyone is aware of the fact that superpowers use nukes basically only as a deterrent. This holds them back because without such backing they would be much more inclined to go for a war. Everyone is aware of the fact that the terrorist and fanatics will try to get a nuke (even dirty one) anyway. Removal of nukes will not stop them from trying to reach similar weapons.
Advanced countries will get NO advantage by complete nuclear disarmament. It removes them a lot of options and will make their armies more expensive to maintain. For some countries like Israel it would be very dangerous to do so. The only advantage would be for those countries who do not have such weaponry. It would strengthen their positions greatly.
Limitation and stopping proliferation of nuclear weapons - yes. Removal - no. That would be total absurd green leftist activist nonsense. But remember - these folks have been always sponsored "by the others" to make their countries weak. It is their job to spread fear and lies as usual.