> Therein lies the problem with nuclear weapons: they will never be used to win a world war by a calculating Hitler-like figure, but they can be used to kill mo

> Therein lies the problem with nuclear weapons: they will never be used to win a world war by a calculating Hitler-like figure, but they can be used to kill most people on earth by an irrational Osama-like leader. Yes, but the reason that this does affect the existing threat to peace is that an "irrational Osama-like leader" will wage war and slaughter regardless. Nuclear weapons massively increased the collateral damage, but it was not what disrupted the peace in the first place. Unless you consider "living in a cozy first world country while ignoring all war and famine" to be "peace". If that's the case, then yes, the collateral of nuclear war would suddenly be forcing you to be part of the world. But again, I do not like these toys either. I just find the statement that they by themselves affect peace to be wrong.