CNN

That is a hard one because if Iraq had had some nuclear stuff, they might not have been attacked for no reason. You are asking the same question as "how do we get rid of guns in our homes"? You can't because we are afraid of being robbed or attacked while we are trying to sleep. We have alarm systems for the same reason. As long as one country has nuclear capability, you can forget this subject and just go read a book.

To stop proliferation of nuclear weapons the answer cannot be aggressive military action like the past eight years. We must have a diplomatic resolution or compromise. If countries want to use nulclear power fine as long as it does not threaten ANY countries, not just us.

Nothing. Money talks and there is always some one who is willing to sell his/her soul to the devil.

Exactly as President Obama is going at it. Make these weapons unattractive and a world with out these weapons viable.

Jack that is the 64 thousand dollar question. We can all say we want to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons but how can we. Without a world enforcement agency with the power to go in and stop creation of such weapons it is sad to say they will continue. In addition even if all the nuclear powers got rid of and destroyed all land based missiles and if the Subs that the big powers still have are not also eliminated then we all have done nothing. To date I may be wrong but Nuclear Subs have never been included in any talks I know of.

Easy. Destroy all the ones that exist, and don't make anymore. Unfortunately for terrorists, building a nuke is a tad harder than building a car bomb. Thousands of people, billions of dollars...not something you can do in the garage in secret. Want to stop nuclear weapons proliferation? Scrap em all. The bad guys can't build them on their own from scratch without being detected and napalmed.

It is too late, the genie is now out of the bottle. We have a weak, ineffective Secretary of State and an even weaker more ineffective dunce of a president that want to be loved. A prescription for disaster.

I've always thought it was a little disingenuous for the US, with thousands of nuclear warheads, to pretend to have any validity on this issue. How about we get rid of our stockpile, before we start preaching to everyone else?

Now wouldnt this question be better asked of the professionals at the top of the government food chain than average people watching the news?

Oh Jack,That si such an easy question to answer.Same answer now as in WW1.......................and the answer is:
Quit appeasing bullies............I have said that on this blog so many times.Quit making deals with despots as we have done so many times.
Simple as that and we have about 8 left over messes around the world to prove our folly.
David

If the Taliban or Al Queda get hold of loose nukes in Pakistan, it won't be a problem for us anymore.

What can be done to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

We can't have a pile of nukes and not expect any other nation not to have them.

The problem is not the nukes, the problem is who is in power to control them.

Work on that and the nukes themselves won't matter.

Jenna
Roseville CA

First of all, stop relying on the UN to control the issue! By the time they react and agree to do something, the offending party already has added nukes to their arsenal.

We must be more proactive on our own or with key allies in keeping the technology and secrets out of the hands of those individuals and countries/nations intent on increasing their war arsenal.

Disarmament talks only work on the good guys, just like gun control. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) still works unless you can’t say with certainty who launched first which makes submarines and foreign controlled land so dangerous. Scare the warmongers into peace, unless they believe in an the afterlife or martyrdom, which makes religion so dangerous. Nuclear power plants mean more fuel for the lunatics, going “green” isn’t so green. Buying time is the best we can do, starting with Iran if they persist which is why we helped Israel all these years.

I have no idea. Let's ask Rush and Cheney. They know everything.

Bob
Louisville, Ky

The only way is what this EI Baradei is suggesting. Zero nuclear weapons!

There's nothing to be done. If you outlaw nuclear weapons, only outlaw countries will have nuclear weapons.

Ed Reed
Undisclosed Bunker, Texas

WE can't do anything until we practice what we preach.

You can't stop these nations from making nuclear weapons. Only pressure them to not have so many. But all nations will want to have the power to protect themselves. We can only hope to limit the amount of weapons.

First, the U.S. needs to begin the process of dismantling our own nuclear arsenals to set an example and show we are sincere about ridding the world of these disasters waiting to happen. Then, we need to tell every other nation, including Israel, that we will not provide one more penny to them until they have dismantled ALL of their nukes. We could use the $8 billion we give to Israel every year to dispose of our own nuclear material as safely as possible.
Brownwood, Texas

Jack, you know about nuclear deterrence theory, right? The idea that countries with nukes will not war upon other countries with nukes because of mutual assured destruction–so, why not be in favor of nuclear proliferation? If nuclear deterrence theory is sound, then logic dictates: nuclear proliferation makes for a less violent world.

There is no way, it's like un-ringing a bell. The genie is out of the bottle, good luck putting it back in. It;s a little hypocritical to tell everyone else in the world that they can't have nukes while the US has the most and is the only country to have used them on another nation.

I don't think it can be stopped. Even more fearful, "mutual assured destruction" will not inhibit "stateless" terrorist groups from using such weapons as it did with the USSR during the Cold War. Only a collaborative effort against terrorist organizations can have any hope of success, and that seems unlikely with so many unresolved disputes around the world.

We need to be more like Israel. Iraq was on their way to building the bomb and Israel acted on it. They wiped the nuclear facility off the face of the earth with a lightning strike mission before it could be used against them. I applaude them.
Trying to limit the number of countries that have nuclear weapons is like this country trying to ban guns. There will always be guns and there will always be nuclear weapons.
Use North Korea as a gauge. When that backward country obtains the skills to produce nuclear weapons the world is going to be a much more dangerous place.
It's just a matter of time before these bombs fall into the wrong hands and they land in a theater near you.

I totally agree with Mr. Baredei suggestons,but I would go one step further, all nations that have nuclear weapons including those who have not declared of having nuclear weapons to disarm immediately

Stop bulding new recators,decommision old reactors and destroy all nuclear weapons. Problem Solved. John St Marys Pa.

There are legitimate concerns from Countries for their safety when some nations have nuclear weapons and they don't as this leaves them basically defenseless.

The U.K and the U.S. have now established the fact they will invade other countries and use torture so why would any other country like Iran every think that a decision to use nuclear weapons on them would be out of the question?

Any Country that doesn't try to obtain Nuclear weapons is just not in touch with reality which likely means every country who doesn't have them will keep trying to obtain them.

El Baradei is correct that everyone must get rid of their nuclear weapons in order to rid the world of the need for them. Other than that, it would require a nuclear holocaust to resolve the problem. The war hawks are all in favor of the latter since they fully believe that we must conquer everyone that doesn't agree with us. Unfortunately, I think that violence will be the ultimate winner. How sad that man, especially the Christians in the US, will strive to make Armegeaddon a reality.

Jack the government is working on it. As soon as they figure out how to stop Mary Jane from crossing the Mexican Borders, they will apply those lessons to nuclear weapons.

So all we have to do is disarm, and we will suddenly have moral authority? And this moral authority will cause North Korea, Iran, and others to do whatever we ask. Hmm...Centuries of being exploited and dominated by the West will seem like a distant memory, possibly even a pleasant memory. We will be buddies, and buddies honor each other's wishes. Sounds like a plan.

Most countries in the world don't have enemies even though they all have problems with terrorism being invaded isn't likely a major concern.

About the only ones that do are N. Korea vs. S. Korea, India vs. Pakistan and maybe America with whoever they perceive as an enemy although I find it hard to believe Cuba, Iran or Venezuela are likely threats to invade the U.S.!

All that needs to be done is the countries that have nuclear weapons do away with them.

The best way to stop nuclear proliferation is to have a more lethal weapon in the stockpile. Which makes me wonder what sort of death-ray, or biological bug the major nations have on hand. But for actual nuclear proliferation we have to keep an eye on Israel, not Iran or north Korea. Israel is said to have over 300 nuclear weapons. Israel has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and does not allow inspections. The U.S. must demand Israel comply with the standards of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, or else sanction Israel as we do Iran and North Korea. As for Pakistan and India, we may offer incentives to provide energy, and broker peace between them.

Nothing, unless we are willing to use force to stop other countries from developing this technology. The idea that if we destroy our nuclear weapons we can then persuade other countries to do so is too absurd to discuss.

Most of these wannabe states can't be trusted, so we may try giving them alternatives that they will perceive as much worse than the benefits of having such weapons, like actually enforced sanctions and boycotts.

Short of a joint decision to militarily prevent any more nations from acquiring nuclear weaponry, nothing can be done. We can talk or sanction with no more sucess at preventing proliferation than we've had to date.

El Baradei may encourage world-wide nuclear disarmament but the genie has escaped the bottle and we can't undo that fact.

So what is needed is a nuclear-armed global police unit to make certain no one else develops or deploys nuclear weaponry. Our Fleet Ballistic Missile subs should be the appropriate patrol platform. Finding and fielding a police unit with no political or religious agenda will be the most difficult and most essential part of the solution.

Nothing. That genie is out of the bottle. We were warned as you recall...oppenheimer told us in no uncertain terms that nuclear warfare was madness. It still is. It always will be.....until of course there's nobody left to be mad.

That ship has already sailed Jack . There is sufficient nuclear material missing or unaccounted for from Russia for those that know how to make a nuclear weapon to do so. We only think we know who has the capability to produce nuclear bombs. That does not mean we are correct and even includes terrorists. A nuclear bomb can come in many shapes. It only takes about a ton of enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. It does not have to look like a missile either it could look like anything you can think of and could be next door to you and you wouldn't even know it.

One thing you can do is ask the History Channel to stop telling people how one is made. I'm sure very terrorist is watching. Ralph, Yakima, Wa.

Too late Jack! Its like closing the barn door AFTER the horses have escaped!. No way on God's green earth will these countries agree to disarm ALL their nuclear weaponry on the behest of the USA. We are a perfect example of what could happen if all countries agreed to such a deal AND then have some other country that wouldn't dance to our music, get invaded and bombed to smithereens!. The world will never have the trust & respect for the USA because of our unwarranted invaded of Iraq and destroying a country that did nothing to us.

When men stop wanting to be petty dictators, when they stop rattling their saber's and when they stop coveting what the other guy has be it land, money, or a woman then there will be no need for nuclear weapons. Of course they could start by abiding by the treaties they have already made regarding non-proliferation. If men can't do this latter trick they sure as hell won't be able to do any of the former.

Honestly, so long as countries possess ambition and a desire for more power, nuclear proliferation will continue, until they realize that the development of a weapon costs quite a lot of money, and possession of it grants you no additional power unless people believe you have reason and intent to use it, at which point you become a target. Truly speaking, nuclear weapons only have benefit in a mutually assured destruction form of protectionism.

Uh, destroy ALL nuclear weapons we and others have now? Uh, stop making more? Uh, outlawing them for ALL countries?

Thom Richer
Negaunee, MI

Jack: There needs to be global agreement to stop the nuclear arms proliferation. History tells us there will always be rogue nations. We need to build alliances and accords that self monitor and allow for sanctions to occur if there is a breach. The very thought of this type of collaboration was unthinkable over the past 8 years. Finally there's some glimmer of hope with our new President Obama.

In a perfect world Mr. El Baradei presents a very viable position. However, along with an agreement on disarmament there is a need to describe the actions that will be taken both militarily and financially to any state that develops weapons. But we live in the real world where the US turns its eyes away from what Israel is doing and at the same time condemns what Iran is doing. We have Russia that has recently exhibited its new aggressiveness with the invasion of Georgia. Then we have North Korea that will develop nuclear weapons and sell them. Then what do we do with terrorists like Osama Bin Laden who do not represent any state but would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they can be secured. The only position we can take is to protect Americans and let others know we have the weapons and will use them if provoked to the extreme.

I agree with him. Enough is enough. Its time to end all this. The Cold War is over.

Nothing. As long as one nation has them, other nations will want them. The cat is out of the bag and making a lot of noise. The only thing that can control the situation is for a lot of big dogs to make their bite as strong as their bark.

Innovative thinking that would invent or develop a technology that would allow peaceful nations to covertly disable the use of or delivery of these war heads without destructive tactics which would risk inadvertent launches or explosions of the weapons...

Steve
Clifton, VA

Jack, There should be a serious punishment for violation of nuclear non-proliferation treaty, most people they don't even know how much destruction it does, its like countries committing suicide.
country like Pakistan and India they say they built it for protection , i mean what kind of protection is this if some lunatic launches one, then other see it and other will launch there will be a nuclear Holocaust total destruction.
UN or US should make people around the globe aware of how deadly these weapons are, and its technology should be stopped from spreading, The only prevention from spreading these WMD's technology is to impose sanction accordingly on the country who did nothing to stop it from spreading.

Have all the people who are in any way connected to any kind of control over a viable nuclear weapon consider the science that got them there. Tell them that they must look toward God. Use the same measures and tests of science and throw away the magic. Look to the words of the prophets and put aside all the mysticism. They will find an answer and this threat of nuclear calamity can be avoided.

Jack - The United States needs to convince ALL the nuclear powers,
including itself, to safely dispose of ALL nuclear weapons - the ONLY way to lead regarding this issue is by example - only then can the nuclear powers require nations that do not possess nuclear weapons to
desist from doing so!

I don't believe nuclear weapons can be stopped. Between years of fissile material being sold in the black market & transported in stealthy ways from troubled countries (such as Russia); plus being created in places like Iran; it is a little too late to PUT THE LID BACK ON THE COOKIE JAR. Everyone has had their hand in it. Some individuals & countries just “wash the crumbs off their hands” better than others & then deny having prior knowledge of access to such materials.

Jack, I believe we throw out all sanctions options and just say to these countries who are producing or in the process of producing nucelar weapons to just stop it. There breaking all the rules of the treaty and if they continue to do so we should just tell them be prepared to suffer the consequences and thats not only my opinion

Jack To me like every thing else In life We all have a choice water it is to smoke or not to and If we do we can either stop or not I smoked for over thirty years I quit cold turkey It was not easy but I did it , I though over a half pack away and never pick up another one, it was not easy no did i feel like hell in the beginning yes I even cried I wanted one so bad But I decided to quit and I did . I guess if it could save your life ,then if we make up our mined then there is just one thing to do stop making them and dismantle the rest, the only way we will ever get it done is just DO IT .
Ron Holst
San Antonio
Tx.

Jack, with the lack of honesty on the parts of the UN and goverments of major players on the world stage, It is next to impossible to stop. Concern on the part of countries like China, Russia, France, etc will never put thier own interests aside for the good of the world. GREED will always prevail until it's too late. Jim/ Phoenixville, Pa.

Not a damn thing as so long as we are human. It's our basic nature to fight with the best weapons that can be devised. I would say that the human race must evolve into something else first, but there is no such thing as evolution, right?

At this point in time, nothing. So long as everyone mistrusts everyone else and killing everyone who doesn't believe what you do is considered the only way to handle things nuclear weapons will continue to be made and eventually used. Every nuclear weapon in the world should be destroyed.

The around the world apology tour conducted by this shameful, arrogant administration apparently has not helped anything.

What can be done to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Surprisingly very little over the long term, Iran and Korea are two primary examples, other countries are likely to follow suit...no doubt the West's inability to dissuade Iran from abandoning its nuclear ambitions has encouraged Kim Jong Il not to abandon his any time soon...nevertheless, despite the grim reality that nuclear weapons are here to stay, efforts to contain them should continue admittedly a daunting task that can only be achieved by patience and dialogue...

Easy Jack, turn your enemies to friend and the rest will follow , this president is heading to the right directions when it comes to proliferation of nuclear weapons,after all he did team up with some republicans when he was a senator and am sure he will do something about it if Americans and republicans give him a chance.

P.S
Jack i like your book , say hello to Mr. Wolfman .

I personally belive that even if major powers jump in and try to stop the poliferation of nucular wepons its so un enforcable that it would be little more than a PR thing pepole will do as they please

I don't beieve there is anything that can be done to stop nuclear proliferation. Most of the people I talk to believe that all have more than they will admit, including the United States. The horse is out of the barn!

every country in the world need to be involved to include countries with and with out the weapon so that every one is on the same page.

At this point I do not think there is anything that can be done to stop counties from wanting and accumulating nuclear weapons. The only thing we can hope for is that all nuclear weapons stay under the control of people who are not radical enough to use them.

And I think the days of the United States being the watchdog of the world when it comes to nuclear capabilities are numbered.

Nothing. I like the idea of mutually assured destruction. If we don't have these things, someone, somewhere will develope biological weapons that will be even more deadly than the bomb and we will all be just as dead when some moron decides to use it.

That will happen only when the planets population is zero. Don't blame the messenger.

You want to end it give them all bombs.

One of your toughest questions ever. I have to wonder what it would look like if every country felt secure? That's pretty hard to imagine in todays world. I think global nationalism has a part in this. Can we get away fom that? Probably not. In the meantime, a Global dose of Prozac might be a possible solution. Or a world-wide MADD driven by a USA that would ensure the end of life on the planet.

Nothing..! We have been past the point of no return on this subject for quite some time now..Do you really believe that if we and others do away with nuclear weapons that the other countries will stop trying to attain them..? WRONG!

The government is working on it. As soon as they figure out how to stop Mary Jane from crossing the Mexican Borders, they will apply those lessons to nuclear weapons.

PASS a new UN resolution disarming all nations of all nuclear weapons, and then the superpowers need to disarm. Then, all nations that do not follow suit, should be punished severely.

Nothing can be done. Those who have them will keep them, those who want them will procure them and those who don't have them will live in fear.

Only nuclear holocaust can lower the number of countries with nuclear armaments.

To stop contries from getting Nuclear weapons, we shold get the countries that have them to get rid of them first. Who are we to tell the countries of the world NOT to get NW when we have them. Who died and make us boss or policemen or bullies
Kony-Mahwah, NJ

Mandate that all countries have nukes, the same amount for every nation. We will blow ourselves up or have global peace.

Either way it would be the end of stupidity.

I don't believe anything can be done in the short term. Unfortunately, a nucular weapon incident will probably have to happen somewhere in the world to force nations into adopting a total ban.

Sadly to say Jack, it will stop when a major nuclear accident happens and mankind is fearful of the next day. Another nuclear accident. We humans have a long way to go to climb the latter of intelligence.

The only reason for these weapons is people want to feel safe, that has always been the reason and that will always be why we have them. The only way we can end this is if everyone looses their weapons and there are two ways for that to happen. One, something so horrible happens that it causes everyone in the world to come together for their own common good or two someone comes along with a much bigger weapon and forces everyone back in line.

Thinking outside the box... Get the germ specialists to engineer a bacteria that would eat up all that plutonium or whatever is used in nukes and spread it around the world.

That would put a new slant on the concept of germ warfare!

Jack, watch Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Total commitment! Or, we learn to live with the sad reality that the arms race will never end, even if the major powers totally disarm themselves first, in an attempt to set a good example.

There is nothing that can be done to stop the spread of nuclear weapons in these virtual states. It is something the first world listens too, and a status symbol of the larger states. These states are taking small steps in order to gain power on the world scale, that actually proves to be easier than trying to build up a large well-equipped army. So the best the the states that already have weapons can do is to ignore these states developing them. I refer strictly to the media, of course the military should keep taps on the weapons.

easy, come up with a more powerful weapon of mass destruction..

Sadly, they never cut out the cancer when they first discovered it Jack, stopping it now is not an option it is how are we going to deal with it when it happens..

Patch
Ajax

You can't stop proliferation of nuclear weapons. Once the genie has been let out of the bottle, there's no effective way to stuff it back inside. Shame on us for pulling the plug on that bottle! Something more for us not to be proud of...

The first step in stopping the spread of Nuclear Weapons is not to have a war-hawk foreign policy. Remember when North Korea threatened to go to war if we or Japan shot their missile down? Well Newt Gingrich said if he was president he would have bombed them before they even launched it. But look, nothing at all happened because Obama just ignored North Korea. The key to stopping the spread of Nuclear Weapons is to be diplomatic and ignore these leaders, such as the ones in Iran and North Korea that are just seeking attention.

When I was a high school student, I participated in a Model UN Conference, and this was one of the topics in the "Disarmament Committee." What I learned there, and what I believe to this day, is that if we are to truly end the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it has to be both a preventative and negotiable measure. The United States must make an effort to not only persuade nations such as North Korea to end their nuclear weapons programs, but to practice what they preach. The "nuclear club" must make a similar effort to disable their own nuclear weapons along with the negotiating partners. By living by example and working with outside nations, I believe that nuclear proliferation will cease to exist by the end of the century. To steal a line from Obama, there is no way it will end if we tell them "no we can't" while we say "yes we can."

It's easy, Jack. The US must simply live up to its obligation to reduce so-called "vertical" proflieration within countries like the US. Article VI of the Non Proliferation Treaty is crystal clear on this, but the US has never taken it seriously. Consequently, the rest of the world doen't take the Non-Prolifertiotreaty seriously either. The US is the worst proliferator of all; As soon as we start reducing our arsenal, the rest of the world will follow suit. No one wants these doomsday devices.

Jackson

It is impossibl to stop the spread of nuclear weapons unless someone could show that it would not be in the candidate nation.s interest to achieve this.Since this is highly unlikely, spread will very likely continue.

I don't see how you are ever going to put this genie back in the bottle.

Can anything really be done?
Fact: Nuclear weapons exist.
Fact: As time goes on there will be more and more.
Probable fact: they will end up in hand willing to use them.
Hope: maybe I'll be able to get a home on the moon before that happens.

Rogue states like Afghanistan, Iran, and others that are motivated through their religions to wage war on others will never be convinced to stop their proliferation of nuclear weapons. Religious reasoning behind wars goes back thousands of years and the cessation of the production of nuclear weapons by other nations will not be enough to motivate these nations. However, the United States, China, Russia, and other world leaders can lead by example and stop their production of nuclear weapons and begin to downgrade their stockpiles as well. All we can do is lead by example and hope others follow, because the Bush doctrine of policing the world does not work, and will never work. We can't simply hope to push people around and threaten them in the name of safety and freedom, that would be hypocritical and so would the continuation of the R&D and proliferation of nuclear weaponry.

There is no credible alternative in the nuclear NON proliferation arena but for the major powers, led boldly by the United States to begin immediate and continuing reductions to nuclear stockpiles.

It is disheartening that the reductions, to which we have previously agreed, are taking much longer than the buildup of these weapons, whose use is unthinkable under any circumstances.

Maybe President Obama, who has shown the courage to take unpopular positions on other issues, will evidence the statesmanship on this issue that will be needed to cause action.

When Einstein wrote that letter to Roosevelt he set in motion a series of events that are still unfolding to this day. The direct answer to your question is "not much". Where it will all lead to is a very unfortunate end if we do not smarten up very quickly!

In short, nothing.
Talking doesn't work.
Sanctions don't work.
Millitary action won't work until all the "haves" can get along.

Ask again when that happens.

I don't have much confidence that this can be accomplished. In time Africa will want its own weapon. This is where 21st century diplomacy needs to get all of these countries to commit to the same ultimate goals for peace and peaceful coexistence in this new global world and economy.

The League of Nations failed and led to WWII... the United Nations failed and many innocent people have died throughout the world. Time to replace the old useless UN with a group that has the power to "do" and not just "talk". When are we going to learn that we are all on this planet together and that threats cannot be overcome by a group of useless people talking and waving their fingers. Had the UN "done" instead of "talked", the Iraq conflict would never have happened. The long and short to your question is nothing can be done because we continue to do the same thing always looking for something different to happen. It ain't going to work. It is not a matter of "if" but "when" the disaster will hit.... that is unless we finally put together an organization of doers and not talkers.

It can't. Peace won by compromise is usually a short lived achievement, to be prepared for war is the most effective way to preserve peace. Every empire in history has proved this. Its sad, but the only thing a person can do is learn to live in a constant state of entropy.

Jack;
The answer is simple, Global Thermal Nuclear War!
We are the advanced species.

Honestly...Nothing. As long as the United States and Israel, along with Russia, China, Pakistan, France, Britain, North Korea and India have them, the chances of removing or destroying them are very slim. People of any nation will not feel safe unless they also have them as a deterrent to others, thus the push to even the playing field. When we blow ourselves up, well, then nothing matters anymore after that really.

Stopping nuclear proliferation is simple: Aim an ICBM and an antiballistic missle at each country that has nuclear capabilities. If any of them fire one, they are automatically eliminated from the rest of the human race. We did this in the '60's and it worked....only McNamara and his ilk, obviously, still around today believe in crawling on our knees to the "developing nations with nuclear capabilities". Cowards never learn that the only way to be safe is to be THE STRONGEST.

The only way is for America to follow its Christian beliefs and disarm showing the world the way. We could never use them anyway and our miltary technology is so superior to anyone elses that we could do it safely.

Nuclear proliferation was kept in check way back when we had real leaders dedicated to the control of nukes, Reagan, Gorbachev, thatcher ...etc, and today we have well to put it mildly spine less world leader, the more countries aquiring the nukes, the more it's possible someone will use them in an aggressive way. We are in trouble.

There is only one way to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons and that is for the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France and Israel to come clean by destroying all nuclear weapons in their possession. By so doing, they'll have a better moral standing to direct other nations to do so. The holier than thou attitude by western nations is going to take them no where in their quest to discourage "rouge States" from developing nuclear weapons.
Davies Abayomi from Baltimore.

we can stop proliferation of nuclear weapons by finding diplomatic solution to the crisis. I heard other countries with nuclear weapon have stated that they would be willing to give up their nuclear weapons- if everyone else does. i can onley say Giving peace a chance by negotiating an end to the nuclear age.

The U.S. should create a global trade alliance with as many nations as possible. The trade alliance would allow trade with any nations in the alliance; and would allow for international trade with slightly lowered tariffs, so that countries benefit more from their exports. However, the main purpose of the alliance would be to issue sanctions to nations that war without sufficient reason, or nations like Iran and North Korea who refuse to decrease their nuclear stockpile. If a nation started committing immoral actions, went to war without sufficient reason, or resisted demands of the United Nations (i.e. stopping research of nuclear weapons), the alliance would kick out that country of the alliance and they would be locked out international trade; which would implode their economy, and they would fall into a long economic depression. The trade alliance would be successful if a large majority of nations joined.

Jack,

Let everyone have a nuclear bomb then I bet you it would stop being a weapon that can be used to threaten other countries.
Oh, I am forgetting that today's nuclear powers want to continue dominating the world through their military arsenal.
Every Nation has the right to self determination and if that means building a nuclear arsenal so be it. There is no value in this proposition for those who want to acquire this technology today. This problem has an ALL or NOTHING solution. Either every country has nuclear weapons or EVERY nuclear weapon on the face of this Earth is destroyed, including the American Arsenal.

If these nations want nuclear weapons, we should just give them some. We should then welcome them to the club and explain that these things haven't done us any good in 60 years. We can't use then you see, because if we did, that would just be it for us. The other nuclear powers would destroy us that very day. You can have these weapons under the same conditions. If just one of them ever goes off, thats just it for you, your nation and your people. The real question is why on earth were we stupid enough to waste all our wealth building ten thousand of these things, and why oh why are we paying to maintain them all?

After the Soviets detonated their first atomic bombs, Air Force General Curtis LeMay advocated putting B-29's over Moscow and trucking out the nuclear material. The original signatories to the Nuclear Arms Prolifiration Treaty should consider this idea in regards to the rogue countries.

Keep up the great work!!

Jeff Ferree

Having an honor system for disarmament or expecting those desperately trying to obtain or create nukes to agree to stop, just ain't gonna happen – Armegeddon is coming. Time to make your peace with God.

Greetings Senior Cafferty:

When trying to stop Nuclear proliferation, you face the same 2 problems:
1)The nations wanting other nations not to have nukes have ulterior motives. They want to be the only ones on the planet to have the capability to blow up the planet, mainly to use as political leverage. "You become a democracy otherwise you know what we can do to you."
2) The premise must be that the whole world use nuclear technology only for peaceful purposes, nuclear power plants for electricity generation. The problem here is that one nation will say "Why are you looking at me only, look at him also" then "I don't trust that he has fully disarmed, so I need nukes to safeguard me against him."

Nuclear weapons in the hands of human beings is the giving of the power to take out life to impulsive and impetuous teenagers who act based on hormones and not truth.

If those that have these weapons can not come together for a mutual agreement to either reduce or eliminate these weapons, then I have to regretably say, it won't be long before the world as we know it is TOAST.

The moral authority arguement is a weak one, because some times people just won't listen if they don't have to. It's like Al Capone said, you can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.

HeyJack
Don't you think it's kind of arrogant to try to prohibit other countries from having nuclear weapons when the U.S. and USSR have such a large stockpile of them pointed at anyone we considera threat? We will never stop other countries from developing nuclear weapons when we are setting such a bad example. PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.

We can prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the only requirement is for the original nuclear club U.S., Russia, China, U.K, and France to work together to enforce the The 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The sad fact is that some countries rather take their chances with a future nuclear holocaust rather than commit to a present international response.

Times have changed my friend. All countries have equal right to develop nuclear power/weapons etc. You can't have self appointed group of some nations to make rules for others.

So far no country except United States has used nuclear arsenal on civilians. Right or wrong is something the world is still divided upon. Any country can come out with 1001 excuses and justify its actions. So let's let vereybody of their own or have a UN type new organization where VETO power is given not just to selected few who appointed themselves but given to all countries with true democratic countries like India.

the only way Nuclear weapons can be stop is for the west to stop being hypocrite. That is the US con not go and sign Nuclear deal with Dubai and expect Russia, china, France and England not to do the same

The solution is all too simple and impossible. The human race needs to grow up!

I like the solution offered by "Leslie, who wrote 'give them all bombs' yes, that's right.

Those of us, who are Baby Boomers remember the drills to hide under our desks! As if that would have helped!

The only thing that kept the U.S. from blasting the Soviets with nukes, was the fact that the Soviets also had nukes...... aimed at the U.S.!

**Mutually assured destruction.** So yes, give every country their own nuclear weapons, and we will have ............ peace.

We, nor any other civilized nation, have much to fear from any other nation whom would recognize any “moral authority” regardless of their armament. The states and non-government organizations which don't yet have weapons which we would rather they never do are the kind of personalities which fail to understand morals anyway. It is a sad truth that such states and organizations would be less likely to misbehave out of the fear of our retaliation then out of logic or morals. Disarming ourselves won't make us or the world safer, nor convince lunatics from developing nuclear weapons. All it will do is limit our deterrence which for some is the only logic they understand and respect.

What we can do is make sure the world learns from the lessons we and the Russians learned during the cold war, and reinforce that using nuclear weapons offensively would bring dire consequences.

David
Ames, Iowa

Lets not forget that the Talaban and Al Quida are mere miles away for a nuclear arsenal estimated at 60 functional weapons. Pretty soon no one is going to be here to worry about it too much at all! The US through good intentions invented the bomb. I think it should be up to the US to find the right path to get us out of this mess globally!

How to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons? Excellent question Jack! We can use Thorium! With Thorium, we can have clean green nuclear power without nasty side effects of uranium technology we are using now. You can't make nuclear weapons with Thorium. We have more Thorium than Uranium but we are not using it. Why? Can't make weapons from it! We need energy and we have Thorium but why don't we see Thorium power plants being built? Can't make weapons from Thorium! Add it up Jack, there is no money in life and cheap power for us all!

-Dave, St.Paul Minnesota

You can’t stop these nations from making nuclear weapons. Only pressure them to not have so many. But all nations will want to have the power to protect themselves. We can only hope to limit the amount of weapons.

See Jack,

Mr. Gates is showing his true sentiments of his values about the well being of the american people and yet we expect that judges won't share their sentiments about the well being the american people...!

Proliferation will continue as long as there is a prize – the fear! To end proliferation, we must treat the proliferators without fear and send the message that there is a more profitable course of action than the prize that they are currently trying to seize.

See Jack,

Mr. Gates is showing his true sentiments of his values about the well being of the american people and yet we expect that judges won’t share their sentiments about the well being of the american people…!

You can't mandate away stupidity, or religious fanatacisim, or tribal mentality. So far, we are the only nation that has used the "device" on another country, so maybe a small, well placed reminder of the consequences of detonating a nuclear weapon is in order. Say maybe somewhere in the mountains in Afganistan, since nothing else seems to work there.

Over the past half dozen decades the most effective way of stopping nuclear proliferation was the Israeli way. Air strikes! Each time the third worlders try to rebuild their way of blackmailing the world – bomb it again. In the age of smart bombs, stealth aircraft this should not be an insurmountable problem.

Do you know what is the problem Jack between media and politics...each fall to the trap of being self serving towards each other and ignoring the fact that millions of people voted and their voices count and they should count more every single day...I guess we need a little bit more balance...!

Technological advancement is a force of nature. I've long held that it's impractical to try to restrict such advancement and the more it's attempted, the more alienated nations will feel, and the more resolved they'll become in seeking it.

When the major nations of the world develop and move from nuclear to cold fusion, or five generations of technology beyond that, do we still expect minor nations not to have nuclear power?

Detonate all of them so the people that would surivve will start anew without nuclear weapons. Otherwise it's a art race to acquiring nuclear weapons.

It is sad that we find ourselves in this position...You can't un-invent the bomb. The information is out there as are the scientists and techs that built it. If we lay down ou arms we simply invite others to act on or against our behalf.

We must be able to stop threats. We do that by having bigger or more weopons, no matter what they be. We are powerless to stop a ball that we started rolling...the best we can do is to keep it from rolling over people when we can.

Peace

let's see it's been more than 60 years since anyone has used the bomb. we are all sceared as hell to put them into use, so give anyone who want's one a good price and they could sit on it like the other nation's that have them, just like the rest of US.

There isn't a way to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that ship has already left the port. Before any of the heavy weight super powers will get involved, a catastrophe of some kind will have to occur, and then maybe governments will get serious.

Jack, I don't think that anything can be done. The United States can no longer claim the moral highground and police everyone due in part to the previous administration. I believe that we are destined to blow ourselves up.

Nothing. To quote the late Carl Sagan, it's like all the countries are standing in a room knee deep in gasoline. Some of the countries have two matches, some have twenty. It really dose'nt matter who strikes their match first or how many. In the end, everybody winds up losing.

Nuke the countries attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. After the first country gets nuked, no more attempts, simple.

Education. Education. Education. Of others, of ourselves. We should play movies of the victims of Hiroshima and their suffering on the news now and again. Just as we show images of bloody car wrecks to students in High School to prevent drunk driving.

Proliferation, LOL! I don't see the US destroying our arsenal. I got a good idea why dont we just equip the taliban with a warhead, and then follow it through the satelites, and when it gets to the leaders and to Bin Laden, lets remote detonate it, sort of like a trojan virus, and vioala! No more terrorists! I'm gonna go get my vodka back on now!

I am sorry to say, we can't. The only way that we can stop the fear of nuclear war is by ending or removing radicalism from the power seats of every county. No one logical would want nuclear war. Unless there is a radical motive I do not believe there will ever be a nuclear war. This being said, as long as super powers like the U.S. and Russia lord their military power over the rights of smaller and less protected countries those countries will not stop trying to achieve nuclear power. It is the great equalizer of our time, and there is no stopping it.