Kenneth Waltz and some other realists argue for a "widespread proliferation" of nuclear arms so that all countries are subject to MAD and are unlikely to go to war. I don't buy that it would really bring a peace because the amount of applied science required to create a single nuke inherently creates an inequality favoring countries that have the resources to build nuclear infrastructure and either train or buy off nuclear engineers. Total MAD would therefore be less likely to hold up.

If no countries possessed nuclear arms there would be no reason for another country to possess nuclear arms. Therefore, we can prevent explosions and keep the peace between nations. Why don't we use our words like children are taught to?

I'd argue none should. Killing potentially tens of millions with a single bomb isn't self-defense, it's fucking human-species suicide.

also it would create a desperate arms race were countries with no hope would drive their economies into the ground.

I certainly disagree with the idea of having nuclear arms in all countries 'cause it's like accepting the idea of apocalypse.

What do nuclear bombs do? Kill lots of people. What happens if you kill lots of people in a country? They fight back with more bombs. What happens if they fight back with more bombs? They kill lots of people. This will go on and on until we all die. (I know this seems quite basic, but it is true to an extent.) That is why no one should even think of having nuclear weapons in their grasp, because us humans are too frisky- it's as simple as that. The problem is that there are countries out there who want to keep their bombs just so they can fight back if they were ever attacked by bombs. It's a loop hole that's almost impossible to break out from. Us humans need allot to learn :P

My dream is for all countries to get rid of all nuclear arms. Humanity must be preserved.