Nuclear proliferation can you give me some pros and cons?

Answer 1

PRO:
Gives more power at the negotiations table (Diplomacy)
Makes your nation a legitamate force to contend with.
Mutual Assured Destruction forces you not to use the weapon as a first option.

CONS
Hurts your image if your nation is communist or a dictatorship.
Hurts your standing in the international community.
Causes unnecessary attention.
Causes hate and discrimination of your people, if your nation is a dictatorship
Limits your military allies, if your nation is a dictatorship.

Answer 2

There are absolutely, positively NO PROS to nuclear proliferation. Harnessing the power of the Sun for the expressed purposes of creating a military deterrent was the absolute most idiotic things we could have ever done. Not only did it back-fire because now every nut job wants one (and can get it with enough time and money,) but it completely haunts us as we profess moral superiority over the world while sitting on enough nukes to destroy the world many times over; it's the ultimate hypocrisy. Nuclear bombs are the most destructive man-made forces on the planet.

To my fellow American, Unclebut, you're quite right in saying that the number of nukes have decreased over time however; the US still possesses enough nukes to destroy the earth a hundred times over; that's a fact. We also possess more nukes than all other nuclear countries combined, a few times over.

All it takes is one mistake or a chicken hawk (from any country that possesses them,) with a chip on their shoulder and cancel Christmas.

Nuclear power for electrical generation would be a good thing if:
1 - We could figure out how to properly dispose the waste without destroying the planet (my bet is on space disposal provided we can bring costs down.)
2 - We can develop strict, excruciatingly strict standards on production and inspections to ensure no one is enrich uranium for other than power generation.

Answer 3

When I first joined the Army, we had monthly "meetings" demonstrating to we youngsters such things as the violence of what people jokingly call "accidents" (in other words, car crashes); drownings; military weapons supplied by Russia and Red China to the North Koreans; and, of course, nuclear bombs. TV at that time often featured shows with nuclear bombs going off; unlike 24, they featured the real thing (these were nuclear tests out in the desert or out on some "deserted" island. Nuclear bombs are, simply, horrifyingly destructive. When one goes off, it can turn sand into glass and vaporize steel or concrete. It creates tornadic winds. It releases radiation that can kill or maim for years to come.
There are NO PROS; only cons. If Man can learn to tame nuclear power, it is far cleaner than burning oil to generate electricity. Other than that, the best deal is to ban it from Earth.

Answer 4

Having slept next to an ammo dump with 100 or so tactical nukes for 27 months (Fliegerhorst Kaserne Germany 74-76) they added to the deterence factor. The Soviets had us outnumbered (10 to 1 if I remember right) with armor and stayed on their side even while we were in Viet Nam.

My con would be just the part of them being 300 yards away from my bunk.

Nuclear power may be our best solution to replacing oil on the non weapons side of the debate