# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear wepons are dangerous tools of mass destruction and have the capability to completely destroy the world. Now that these wepons are accessible the best thing to do with them is to use them as a deterrent for war. If countries fully comprehend the effects of a nuclear war they will likely not start a nuclear war. In a nuclear war both sides loose.

# data[].attributes.body
1) The reality is that nuclear weapons are not very good weapons. The first problem is that they are messy and the radiation can blow back on your own troops in the event of an Nuclear attack. In a single nuclear attack 20 million people could die from radiation spread.

# data[].attributes.body
2) Nuclear Wepons allow small wild countries to cause great devastation. The United States which is ranked the most powerful army in the world is can be challenged by a country that is ranked the 23rd strongest country acording to military strength. Nuclear wepons allow a small rogue nation to cause mass chaos around the world.

# data[].attributes.body
3) Nuclear material is not contained properly. 24 countries have nuclear materials that ISIS or any other extremist group could get ahold of to create a dirty bomb.

# data[].attributes.body
4) The U.K.’s nuclear weapons didn’t stop Argentina from attacking the British-held Falkland Islands in 1982. Israel’s nuclear weapons didn’t stop Arab states from attacking that country in 1973. Nor did they deter North Vietnam from fighting the United States. Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan still teeter on the edge of all-out war.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the possible brink of a new nuclear arms race, questions answered during the Cold War will need to be reopened.

Reuters / Zak Bickel / Kara Gordon / The Atlantic

QUESTION

Does Trump have the time arrow pointing in the wrong direction? No nation has begun a nuclear weapon program in this century, and North Korea is the only nation to have tested a nuclear bomb in this century. When John F. Kennedy warned about the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of countries "large and small, stable and unstable," he was looking at threat assessments that counted 23 countries with weapon programs or potential weapon programs. Today, there are only nine.

Having just rolled back Iran's nuclear program, if the world can stop North Korea, we could reasonably be looking at the end of proliferation, the wave of weapon programs that began over 70 years ago following the first nuclear attack, on Hiroshima. While several nations have the technical capability to make nuclear materials and nuclear weapons, there is no other country with a dedicated program like North Korea's. Our nuclear nightmares could continue to shrink.

ANSWER
That's somewhat comforting. It remains true, though, that the world is a dangerous place. America's nuclear weapons, at least, actually make the world safer by deterring potential conflicts through the threat of massive retaliation.
QUESTION

Has history shown that to be true? Nuclear-armed states are attacked all the time. The U.K.'s nuclear weapons didn't stop Argentina from attacking the British-held Falkland Islands in 1982. Israel's nuclear weapons didn't stop Arab states from attacking that country in 1973. Nor did they deter North Vietnam from fighting the United States. Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan still teeter on the edge of all-out war.

Questioning popular answers to pressing conundrums
Read more

True, the potential for going nuclear may have reduced the risk of a global war between the Soviet Union and the United States, but deterrence almost failed catastrophically several times, including during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Should the World Do With Its Nuclear Weapons?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the possible brink of a new nuclear arms race, questions answered during the Cold War will need to be reopened. Does Trump have the time arrow pointing in the wrong direction? No nation has begun a nuclear weapon program in this century, and North Korea is the only nation to have tested a nuclear bomb in this century.

# data[].attributes.body
5) United States General Collin Powell said, “The one thing that I convinced myself after all these years of exposure to the use of nuclear weapons is that they were useless. They could not be used. This is the moment when we have to move forward and all of us come together to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and eliminate them from the face of the earth.”

# data[].attributes.body
1) Nuclear Wepons Have Saved Lives- This may come as a shock but over the years nuclear weapons have slowed down the progression of war and have made nuclear bearing countries think twice about the cost of a nuclear war.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a father of two young children, I am often perplexed when I hear senior leaders from the Department of Defense speak before civilian and military audiences and say something like, "If I could uninvent nuclear weapons, I would. But since we can't put the genie back in the bottle, we must maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear force."

What makes this statement so perplexing is that creating a world free of nuclear weapons wouldn't ensure my son and daughter live in a world safe from the great power wars that killed eighty million people between 1914 and 1945.

During World War II alone more one million people died per month because of the war.

For those critics of nuclear weapons who argue that the world would be safer if we put the genie back in the bottle, the historical record presents a number of inconvenient truths that they cannot overcome.

Nuclear weapons save lives

Since 1945, nuclear weapons have eliminated great power wars, saving the lives of untold millions. This is because a conflict between nuclear armed states has the potential to escalate to a nuclear conflict. Fortunately, the leaders of nuclear powers are not only unwilling to go to war, but they go to great lengths to constrain their allies and partners from engaging in conflicts that might eventually drag them in a conflict with another nuclear armed state.

The net effect of this risk averse behavior is that there has been an approximately ninety percent reduction in conflict related deaths over the last seven decades. This is not to say that all conflict has disappeared. It has not. What it does mean is that the wars that are fought are on a much smaller scale and are much less costly in blood and treasure. This is very good news for parents like me who would be expected to send their sons and daughters to fight in the next great power war.

Modernizing the nuclear triad is necessary

Nuclear deterrence only works if an adversary believes the other side has the capability and will to use its weapons. For the United States, both have eroded over the past two decades. During the Cold War, the United States replaced its arsenal about every ten to fifteen years.

However, when the Soviet Union collapsed, President George H. W. Bush cancelled the modernization programs that were set to replace both weapons and delivery vehicles designed and fielded in the 1960s and 1970s. Twenty five years later, those same weapon systems are still defending our families and deterring our adversaries.

The problem with our current nuclear arsenal is that it was never designed to last five, six, or seven decades. Not only is the technology outdated, but keeping these weapons functional is becoming increasingly difficult.

What is even more dangerous are the developments taking place in Russia and China where they are, for example, replacing their 1970s era intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with modern ICBMs that are more capable-putting American families at greater risk?

In fact, our adversaries are modernizing every aspect of their nuclear triads. And in the case of Russia, they have a modernized triad which they can use as part of their "first use" policy, which allows for a first strike as part of Russian nuclear doctrine.

Ensuring the continued credibility of deterrence depends on the nation placing the necessary value on nuclear modernization. It is really that simple.

The nuclear arsenal is cheap

Without question, the nuclear arsenal is the most cost effective component of our national defense. Currently, American taxpayers spend about $25 billion per year on nuclear weapons and operations. That is less than five percent of the defense budget and less than half of one percent of the federal budget. At the height of modernization, that cost will rise to seven percent of the defense budget.

When you compare what Americans spend on sovereignty insurance, which is what nuclear weapons are, you will find that they are the most inexpensive form of insurance we can buy. For example, the average American taxpayer spends about $225 per year on the nuclear arsenal (sovereignty insurance), while at the same time they spend an average of about $1325 on auto insurance and $12,000 on health insurance.

What many American do not realize is that the money we spend on the nuclear arsenal allows us to spend less money on national defense and more money on new cars and better healthcare. Because nuclear weapons deter our adversaries from attacking the United States, we are able to redirect our hard earned money to areas that allow us to better take care of our families.

Conclusion

When it comes to nuclear weapons, I am very thankful that they were invented. Neither my father nor I fought the Soviets in World War III. It is my hope that Americans will continue to see the value of nuclear weapons in ensuring peace and will guarantee that we have a nuclear arsenal second to none. I have devoted my life to that mission because I believe it is a crucial way to ensure the safety of my children.
Dr. Adam B. Lowther is the director of the US Air Force's School of Advanced Nuclear Deterrence Studies.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Insider.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 reasons why America's massive nuclear arsenal actually makes the world safer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a father of two young children, I am often perplexed when I hear senior leaders from the Department of Defense speak before civilian and military audiences and say something like, "If I could uninvent nuclear weapons, I would. But since we can't put the genie back in the bottle, we must maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear force."

# data[].attributes.body
2) Nuclear Wepons give the United States the ability to defend and deter any enemy effectively. Realistically Nuclear disarment will likely never happen, for this reason the United States should hold on to their weapons that defend their country.

# data[].attributes.body
3) The bomb changes the dangers of war. If a nuclear war starts both sides loose from mass nuclear destruction. This realization will stop countries from attacking so fast.

# data[].attributes.body
The Nuclear Wepon is the most effective wepon of mass destruction ever created by man. This technology has been around since the 1940’s and has only been used twice in the history of mankind. Russia and the United States currently hold the vast majority of nuclear wepons worldwide. Nine countries are known to have possession of active nuclear wepons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are eight sovereign states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be nuclear-weapon States (NWS) under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, Russia (the successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear wepons have evolved and improved drastically since World War Two. The last major nuclear test was when the Soviets tested the Tsar bomb which created a blast 3,333 times more powerful than Little Boy. The bomb that leveled Hiroshima 72 years ago.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II-codenamed "Little Boy" and "Fat Man," respectively-caused widespread destruction, leveled cities, and killed between 90,000 and 166,000 people in Hiroshima (about 20,000 of which were soldiers), and between 39,000 and 80,000 in Nagasaki. These are the only two nuclear weapons ever used in warfare, and let's hope it stays that way, because some of the nuclear weapons today are more than 3,000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

The Little Boy and the Fat Man were atomic bombs, or fission bombs, which set off a chain reaction of nuclear fission. The atomic nuclei of radioactive materials were split to create different elements, which releases a large amount of energy, splitting more atoms as a result and producing a destructive explosion. In the Little Boy, a bullet-like projectile made of uranium-235 was fired at a core of the same substance to set off the chain reaction. The Fat Man, on the other hand, used a core of plutonium-239 that was ignited with thousands of pounds of conventional explosives, again setting off a chain reaction of nuclear fission.

In a thermonuclear weapon, often called a hydrogen bomb, the fission process is only the beginning. Modern nuclear weapons, such as the United States' B83 bombs, use a similar fission process to what is used in atomic bombs, but that initial energy is then ignites a fusion reaction in a secondary core of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium. The nuclei of the hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium, and again a chain reaction results in an explosion-this time a much more powerful one.

As the above video from YouTube channel RealLifeLore illustrates, the blast from the Little Boy released about 15 kilotons of energy, equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT, and sent a mushroom cloud up to about 25,000 feet. The Fat Man produced an explosion of about 21 kilotons. The B83? 1.2 megatons, equaling 1,200,000 tons of TNT, making it 80 times more powerful than the Little Boy.

It gets even more terrifying than that. The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, set off by the Soviet Union in 1961, produced an insane 50-megaton blast-about 3,333 times more powerful than the Little Boy bomb that leveled an entire city. The Tsar Bomba is the largest manmade explosion to date, sending a mushroom cloud up to more than 130,000 feet in altitude-about four and a half times the height of Mount Everest-as it sent shockwaves around the globe three times over.

If we wanted to, we could build a bomb even more powerful than the Tsar Bomba. Maybe it's time we start looking to use nuclear fusion for something else.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's How Much Deadlier Today's Nukes Are Compared to WWII A-Bombs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II-codenamed "Little Boy" and "Fat Man," respectively-caused widespread destruction, leveled cities, and killed between 90,000 and 166,000 people in Hiroshima (about 20,000 of which were soldiers), and between 39,000 and 80,000 in Nagasaki.

# data[].attributes.body
4) Air Force General John Hyten said , “Conflicts of the post-nuclear age did not compare to the massive international conflicts of the first half of the 20th century including World War I, in which about 17 million people were killed, and World War II,  in which around 80 million people died. Many of the powers involved in these conflicts now have nuclear arms and the world has not seen a global conflict on such a scale since.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stringer/Reuters

The U.S. top nuclear weapons commander revealed Friday that he would not want to see the world ban nuclear weapons.

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, head of the U.S. Strategic Command and the nation's nuclear arsenal, told journalists at the annual meeting of the Military Reporters and Editors Association that such weapons of mass destruction actually made the world safer by discouraging military conflicts among nuclear-armed states. He criticized a proposed resolution being debated at the U.N. General Assembly that would call for a universal ban on nuclear weapons, saying that the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads estimated to exist around the world acted as a deterrent.

"Can I imagine a world without nuclear weapons? Yes, I can. That's a world I didn't like," Hyten said, according to Politico.

Hyten said that the conflicts of the post-nuclear age did not compare to the massive international conflicts of the first half of the 20th century including World War I, in which about 17 million people were killed, and World War II, in which around 80 million people died. Many of the powers involved in these conflicts now have nuclear arms and the world has not seen a global conflict on such a scale since. Hyten said all the wars since "don't even come close," according to Politico. "As horrible as the world is today-and it is nasty-it is not anywhere near like that."

51

50

While most nations have kept their nuclear arsenals confidential, analysts have estimated that nine nations currently possess nuclear weapons. These nations, in order of stockpile, are Russia, the U.S., France, China, the U.K., India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The latter four have not signed or have withdrawn from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, raising international concerns about their potential nuclear arsenals.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

The two largest nuclear powers, Russia and the U.S., signed a landmark treaty known as START in the final days of the Soviet Union in 1991, pledging to reduce and limit their nuclear arms stockpiles. This agreement was renewed by former President Barack Obama in 2010. Since taking office, President Donald Trump has said he would advocate for more nuclear weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin also supported expanding his own nuclear arsenal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top U.S. nuclear weapons commander says nukes are good for the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. top nuclear weapons commander revealed Friday that he would not want to see the world ban nuclear weapons. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, head of the U.S. Strategic Command and the nation's nuclear arsenal, told journalists at the annual meeting of the Military Reporters and Editors Association that such weapons of mass destruction actually made the world safer by discouraging military conflicts among nuclear-armed states.