Am I supposed to suddenly agree with nukes because of this?

People are so short-sighted as to knowing the level of carnage these things produce. "It protects us from invasion" is not a valid excuse. Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced levels of indiscriminate killing and torment that we have not seen before or since, and these weapons have only grown more powerful since then.

Having a handful of fault points in the world is better than a million. People keep making the case that it just takes one madman from either the U.S., Russia, or China to launch a nuke.

Can you imagine if we just started allowing everyone to have nukes because we struggled getting the big guys to stop? Do you want Franz Ferdinand's assassination but with atomic weapons? That's what you get when start allowing more people to have nukes, and "but our guy is rational" doesn't cut it as a justification.

Edit: You know, it's hilarious that I've been blocked from responding to the person below's comment calling me a tankie when at no point did I voice support for China or Russia and literally indicated that it can take a madman from those countries to cause mayhem just as much as it could anywhere else.

I find it so funny that self-described progressives will often drop their stance on war crimes the second you decide that you don't want your country having a device that may as well be called "Warcrime Commiter 9000". Does Avi Lewis support Canada having nuclear weapons? No? So he's a tankie then, right? It just goes to show how far the Overton window has shifted right, and how people are shifting with it.

I want to know when being Canadian started meaning being anti-humanity. The creators of these weapons were horrified at their capability, and we decide that we want to have more of these things in the world over this fallacy that more destructive capability means more safety.