Should not all the countries of the world unite to work for nuclear disarmament rather than non-proliferation?

No. Not in any semblance of the real world.

Because once a technology is established as widely as nuclear weaponry is, it can never be eradicated. And there can never be a guarantee that some nation or group of nations won't harbor nukes secretly, or defiantly.

The resulting extreme power imbalance would almost certainly lead to catastrophe, even though it would almost certainly not be a nuclear conflict.

Add.Det.

Yes, a 100% nuclear-free world is impossible, and because 'being nuclear' is a lot like being pregnant (you can't be 'a little bit nuclear'), it follows that before we can decide that just any reduction of nuclear arms, no matter where, is always a good outcome, we must examine the nations that have them, or might be close to getting them. This must at least include: the history of their behavior, to include treatment of their neighbors as well as their own citizens; their political stability; their susceptibility to invasion/'nuclear burglary;' etc.

In my view, you have to look at more than just the total number of weapons in the world; this situation isn't that of a mountain that needs to be worn down; it's much more important whose hands the weapons are in. Today the greatest danger is from rogue terrorist organizations obtaining "suitcase nukes," and setting off the world's biggest suicide bomb in a major city.

And there's something about Al you need to know -- while he was in the top tier in his field, his grasp of world politics was often less than adequate. I hold no end of admiration for his monumental achievements in physics (and far from being the 'head-in-the-clouds' type, he actually invented and held a patent on, a refrigerator!). By the way, did I mention that, as a (pre-?)toddler in a stroller, I saw him several times in person, walking around campus, when my dad was doing graduate study at MIT, and spent a year at the IAS in Princeton? I was too young to remember this, but my parents told me about it years later.

PS. Eisenhower and Kennedy had Khrushchev to deal with; Reagan had Gorbachev.

The problem with all disarmerment treaties is the countries you really don't want to have the most advanced weaponry will sign them then turn around and build weapons.

Look at the axis powers in World War II.

Not sure everyone can be trusted to disarm.

USA is a pig in many ways but we have avoided blowing world up. I am not sure I want to fix something that might easily break in th attempt at mending.

I think we need to replace war with peace not outlaw war.

Greed of developed countries,to dominate the world,Admiral

That WOULD be Nice... -But alas, too much to Expect from mere Humans. :( So nuclear non-proliferation is the Best we can Do- for Now...

Yeah, and they should also all unite to end hunger, and make clean water accessible to everyone, but I'm afraid it will never ever happen, my friend.

Yes they should work for no nuclear arms world and UN should take leadership.

No will to do so. Nice thought though.

works for me, you guys first right after the pakis agree