Read on Twitter
If nuclear weapons remain in existence forever then sooner or later they _will_ be used again: either consciously by some govt, as at Hiroshima, or accidentally, or in response to a false alarm, or because they& #39;ve fallen into the hands of a terrorist group
There was the incident in 1995, for instance, when a scientific research rocket launched from Norway looked on Russian radar like a nuclear missile: Yeltsin activated the "nuclear briefcase" & Russia was only minutes away from "retaliating"
And that was at a time when relations between Moscow & the NATO countries were the friendliest they& #39;ve been in living memory
The _only_ way to make sure nuclear weapons won& #39;t be used is to dismantle them & not build any more
That applies to all nuclear weapons states but I think it applies in particular to Britain & France, bc if you look at the list (USA, Russia, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel, N Korea) then those two manifestly have the weakest argument for needing a deterrent
If _Britain_ can only feel safe when it has nuclear missile submarines continuously patrolling the seas, then how on earth can you say Iran doesn& #39;t need the bomb? Or Venezuela? Ukraine? Saudi? Taiwan? Iraq? Just about any country, in fact?
But a world in which they all had it would not be a world in which nuclear war was less likely
