>A world without any nuclear reactors or uranium enrichment facilities, is a world without nuclear weapons. But this is a plain naive argument to make. At this

>A world without any nuclear reactors or uranium enrichment facilities, is a world without nuclear weapons. But this is a plain naive argument to make. At this point saying "destroying all nuclear bombs means no more nuclear bombs" is also technically correct, but even if, let's say, civil nuclear energy was impossible to manage, there would still be uranium enrichment facilities designed with the sole purpose of creating nuclear weapons, because they give such a significant strategic advantage to superpowers; they just wouldn't allow not to have it when others can. So even without nuclear power plants you would still have nuclear weapons, I really never understood the argument of causation civilian and military nuclear energy, on can exist without the other.