Certainly, that's a fair assumption. However, advocates of nuclear weapons or, for instance, ordinary gun owners, can also cite statistics in their favor. In th

Certainly, that's a fair assumption. However, advocates of nuclear weapons or, for instance, ordinary gun owners, can also cite statistics in their favor. In the US, there are significantly more fatalities due to car accidents compared to deaths from nuclear weapons or gun-related incidents. Thus, based on this data, one could argue that both nuclear weapons and firearms are safer than automobiles. Measuring potential risks is challenging because it often depends on projections rather than past statistical events. It's difficult to claim objective truth in matters like these. For instance, try to explain to a mother who lost her child on Chernobyl's roof why nuclear energy is safe. Similarly, telling a mother who lost her child in a school shooting that guns are safe, because statistically cars pose a greater danger to human life in the US. What I'm trying to say is you can have convincing arguments for many things, even those things that can and do actually kill people.