Shared publicly  - 
Do you know which countries own nuclear weapons? World leaders are calling for closer co-operation to tackle the threat of nuclear terrorism. There are an estimated 20,000 warheads in the world's combined stockpile of nuclear weapons. Where in the world are they?
A map and table detailing global nuclear arsenals.
Rudresh Dessai's profile photoMugerwa Abdu's profile photoJohn Barwick's profile photo陈乐乐's profile photo
Wow,Canada and mexico doewsn't but india does!! yay
I wouldn't trust any of these guys with a slingshot :P
If democrats are terrorists,there are no words to describe the republicans. (Republicans are communal bigots)
Just demonstrates why US and Russia cannot speak with any authority about nuclear disarmament. They need to clean their house first.
USA and Israel should get rid of their nuclear weapons and the world will be a better place to live
and why the hoolabaloo when North korea has only 10? geez i see too many bullies
+Simon Jou Zhang there's always the argument that many nuclear weapons is a good thing, mainly because governments fear their use - ironically, weapons capable of utter destruction, preventing utter destruction. +Joseph Chidwala
+Simon Jou Zhang Not mass proliferation, but ownership for governments who know the potential impact of their use. I'm not for nuclear weapons, but put it in context: two countries with equally destructive power, both reasonable enough to know they can be destroyed by retaliation from the other. In that sense, having nuclear weapons prevents utter destruction.
Nobody likes looking down the barrel of a gun. It's bad enough when stable countries have nuclear weapons, but it gets really scary when unstable nations get them. That isn't being two-faced... It's being realistic. Of course I'm not happy about the US or China having nuclear weapons, but North Korea having them is unthinkable.

Hopefully all nuclear-armed nations will commit to a reduction in the number of weapons and non-nuclear nations will commit to not trying to get them. The power to wipe a city off the map should not be a desirable goal for a country.
Horrifying is that so many west countries possess the highest no. of nuclear weapons and parade outside on banning them. #Shame
+Anthony Kelly Well said. We really can't be naive about the situation. Do people really think larger superpowers such as China and the USA will get rid of their nuclear power? No chance.
It saddens me that the human race will likely kill itself before we manage to migrate to other planets.
Nuclear weapons are here to stay, there is no getting away from that fact, like it or not.
you're right Martin! we should not kill ourself but help each other! who knows, probably we could colonize other planet but till when we waste all our energy nothing can be done! it hurts me
Jay Tee
10,000....holy moly........
So let's see, based on 19,535 weapons in total, Russia has 51%; USA 43.5%; France 1.5%; China and the UK about 1.2% each; India, Pakistan and Israel about 0.5% each and North Korea about 0.05%.

And the USA worries about Iran possibly being able to manufacture a single bomb (if they wanted to) within a decade or two...

I say "if they wanted to" because given they've got numerous nuclear powers surrounding them, plus several other countries with US air bases, they'd probably come under intense diplomatic and possibly even military pressure (especially given Israel's hawkish rhetoric) before they got anywhere near developing their first bomb.

I'd say it's better to show a commitment to significantly reducing their own stockpile before lecturing other countries on their nuclear ambitions!
+Simon Jou Zhang: What +Paul Gardner says makes perfect sense. Imagine there would have been no nuclear weapons in the cold war. Either the NATO or the USSR would have launched a large scale attack, and from WWII we know that a conventional war can claim just as many lives. The only thing keeping this war from happening were nuclear weapons, which guaranteed "Mutual Assured Destruction" ( = the only winning move is not to play). So yes, we do need nuclear weapons for peace.

On the other hand, we don't need as many. Which is why the #START treaties ensure that their number is reduced. (the USSR used to have around 40,000 nukes in the 1980's for comparison)
Russia became the USSR again as I slept? Hmmmph, interesting. 
+Dariel Newman: If you took the time to actually read my comment instead of being the smartass, you'd have seen that I discussed how nuclear weaponry prevented war during the Cold War, during which Russia was in fact part of the USSR.
That's why we will eventually destroy ourselves, we even feel the need to argue with each other in an internet forum!!!
+Dariel Newman precisely, sleeping through a well said argument by +Jarn Vermote It shocks me how people can't put things in context. And thanks for reminding us of 'Mutual Assured Destruction' (couldn't remember the term. And +Paul Barraclough it shouldn't matter whether the discussion is on an internet forum or not, shouldn't it?
Oh Canada.... not only do we produce weapons grade plutonium (medical isotopes) but we sell the ability to produce it (India).
Funny or sad; I can't exactly tell which it is. Relax. Take a deep breath.
Actually, any country that have heavy water breeder reactor would have plutonium in their spent rod. It's only whether they want to extract it or not.
+Simon Jou Zhang: I agree that there are too many, but the power of nuclear weapons is heavily overestimated. Don't forget that tactical nukes are counted along these numbers, while only strategic nukes are useful for MAD. Some 100 strategic nukes would seem enough though for countries the size of China, Russia and the US.
I see your point too +Simon Jou Zhang, I'd prefer a peaceful world over a nuclear status quo, but considering the current state of affairs, nukes are the real peacekeepers. Consider the number of wars between major nations before the start of the nuclear era (1950's) against those after it...
It's sad how in a world such as this where new alternative energies are being discovered and researched as to find the best means to use it, we're still stuck in an age where "nuclear" weapons makes us scared of each other. I bet there's much more powerful means of destruction compared to nuclear. It's '50s technology.
now one can stop this nuclear war to happen. :( its sad but its true......

Just like when first Gun invented no1 able to stop Gun production... Nuclear Bomb is also like a modern Gun..
from those 20,000 warheads 70% are in hands of USA and Russia... than UK, Israel, Germany, China, Pakistan, india and people say Korea also has 1-3
when in hands of big five thats safe,but if some muslim country unsafe,you are the champian, who is the next target
Sence india and pakistan got nuclear weapons, they have not fought. Once Iran gets into the nuclear club the region will become more stable as they will be a counter balance ti Isrial.
+Jeffery Liggett Absolutely, positivly not when you take into account that Iran wishes for the entire people to be annhilated. Yes, India and Pakistan have fought, but at no point have they held the stance that either side did not deserve to exist.
It's all about the MAD doctrine. Both sides having nukes is why the USA and USSR never fought directly. As to wanting to eliminate the other side, remember the quote "bomb them back to the stone age" originated at a time when American generals where talking about communist countries. It is all political rhetoric, Israel is not innocent in this either, both sides what to kill each other over whose book is better.
Then wy you point to a fur in 1 man's eye when you have a plank in your own eye......unless you disarm US and Russia by @ least 60%, then Nkorea and Iran have a moral cause to also flex their teenager nuclear. muscle
wow we have more then india and israel...
thumb up for PAkistani nuclear scientist....
If you buy a specific food because you think you might be hungry for it at some point, but ultimately never eat it, are you pleased or displeased with the purchase? Yes, countries need to defend themselves. But it is a very painful thing to think about what the trillions of dollars that have been spent developing these weapons could have been spent on.
Add a comment...