Corbyn: Nukes 'Didn't Do USA Much Good On 9/11'

Jeremy Corbyn has said nuclear weapons "didn't do the USA much good on 9/11," as an extraordinary row over Trident engulfed his shadow cabinet.

The Labour leader said he would "not press the nuclear button" if he were prime minister and restated his opposition to renewing Britain's nuclear weapons system.

He said: "Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction that take out millions of civilians. They didn't do the USA much good on 9/11."

Several members of his shadow cabinet have broken ranks to openly criticise their leader's position.

Shadow defence secretary Maria Eagle said his remarks were "unhelpful".

She added: "I think it undermines to some degree our attempts to get a policy process going.

"As far as I'm concerned we start from the policy we have… I don't think that, a potential leader answering a question like that, in the way which he did, is helpful."

Her remarks prompted a tweet by shadow international development secretary Diane Abbott: "Surprised that Maria Eagle criticises JC for making his position clear on Trident nuclear weapon system."

Meanwhile Angela Eagle, the shadow business secretary, said that ruling out the use of a nuclear deterrent rendered it redundant.

She said: "We have Labour Party policy on having a nuclear weapon. I don't think anyone in their right minds would want to get to a situation where it would be used.

"But I think if you do get to that situation... you have to be prepared to use it… Jeremy will have to justify his own decisions and his own comments and I think you'll have to talk to him about that."

The party is bitterly split over defence issues - and in particular on Trident.  Labour's official policy remains to support the deterrent, despite the party leader's opposition.

There has also been division on whether Labour would support airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Syria - something that Mr Corbyn opposes but several members of his shadow cabinet have indicated they would back.

If these fractious issues are put to a parliamentary vote, it is likely that Mr Corbyn would have to allow MPs a free vote on the issue or face multiple resignations from his top team.

Shadow home secretary Andy Burnham said he would "find it difficult" to remain in position if Labour changed its policy to favour scrapping Trident.

He said: "I believe we should renew our nuclear deterrent... as I look around the world... I see Russia flexing its muscles, China parading its nuclear weapons... personally.. I don't think now is the time to drop our defences."

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon accused the Labour leader of "effectively saying he would lower Britain's defences".

He said: "Having nuclear weapons and our enemies knowing that we're prepared to use them in the most extreme circumstances of self-defence is vital to keeping our country safe."

http://news.sky.com/story/1561619/corbyn-nukes-didnt-do-usa-much-good-on-9-11

Another day for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, another day of serious division within the Labour Party

She called him JC.
JC? As in, Jesus Christ?

eddie wrote:She called him JC.
JC? As in, Jesus Christ?

I hadn't thought about it like that but with all the hype surrounding him it's hardly surprising!

Trident divisions overshadow final day at Labour conference


The final day of the Labour conference has been embroiled in a row over nuclear weapons, after the shadow defence secretary criticised Jeremy Corbyn for saying he would instruct defence chiefs never to use Trident missiles.

In a sign of deep divisions over Trident in the shadow cabinet, Maria Eagle described the Labour leader’s comments as unhelpful – prompting a rebuke from Diane Abbott, the shadow development secretary. Sir Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB union, said he also disagreed with Corbyn.

The Labour leader responded to the row by intensifying his campaign against nuclear weapons by claiming that the thousands of weapons held by the US proved to be of no use on 9/11. He told the BBC: “The nuclear weapons the US holds – all the hundreds, if not thousands of weapons they have got, were no help to them on 9/11. The issues are threats of irrational acts by individuals.”

The row erupted on Wednesday morning, when the Labour leader told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 that he would in effect disarm on the day he became prime minister by making it clear to generals that he would never authorise the use of Trident. Asked if he would use nuclear weapons, he said: “No.”

Corbyn added: “There are five declared nuclear weapon states in the world. There are three others that have nuclear weapons. That is eight countries out of 192; 187 countries do not feel the need to have nuclear weapons to protect their security. Why should those five need them to protect their security? We are not in the cold war any more.

“I don’t think we should be spending £100bn on renewing Trident. That is a quarter of our defence budget. There are many in the military that do not want Trident renewed because they see it as an obsolete thing they don’t need. They would much rather see it spent on conventional weapons.”

The shadow defence secretary, a supporter of Trident, criticised Corbyn’s remarks. Eagle told the BBC: “I think it undermines to some degree our attempt to try and get a policy process going. As far as I am concerned, we start from the policy we have. I don’t think that a potential prime minister answering a question like that in the way he did is helpful.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/30/trident-divisions-overshadow-final-day-at-labour-conference

Even the Guardian describes this as a "row" and a "deep division" within the Labour Party.  Corbyn certainly has his work cut out turning this ship around

  33.  Acquiring Trident gave the UK a greater nuclear weapons capability than it could ever have achieved on its own. This enhanced capacity, however, had significant consequences.

  34.  The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power. In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. The USA would see such an act as cutting across its self-declared prerogative as the world's policeman, and would almost certainly make the UK pay a high price for its presumption. The fact that the UK is completely technically dependent on the USA for the maintenance of the Trident system means that one way the USA could show its displeasure would be to cut off the technical support needed for the UK to continue to send Trident to sea.

  35.  In practice, the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear attack by participating in it. There are precedents for the USA using UK participation in this way for conventional military operations. The principal value of the UK's participation in the recent Iraq war was to help legitimise the US attack. Likewise the principal value of the firing of UK cruise missiles as part of the larger US cruise missile attack on Baghdad was to help legitimise the use of such weapons against urban targets.

  36.  The most likely scenario in which Trident would actually be used is that Britain would give legitimacy to a US nuclear strike by participating in it.

  37.  The well-established links between the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), in Omaha Nebraska and the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood, London would facilitate the planning of such attacks. In a crisis the very existence of the UK Trident system might make it difficult for a UK prime minister to refuse a request by the US president to participate in an attack.

  38.  The UK Trident system is highly dependent, and for some purposes completely dependent, on the larger US system. The assembling of information available in the USA, but kept secret in Britain, by John Ainslie in his 2005 report The Future of the British bomb, shows how extensive this dependency is (see table below).

  39.  The UK's dependency on the USA has operational significance. For example, the UK's reliance on US weather data and on navigational data provided by the US Global Positioning System (GPS) means that, should the USA decide not to supply this data, the capacity of the UK's Trident missiles to hit targets would be degraded.


  40.  Conversely, the close relationship between US and UK systems also means that the upgrades to the US Trident system have already been incorporated into the UK Trident system. The Royal Navy's adoption of the new US fire control system has most likely already improved its capacity to retarget its Trident missiles rapidly in order to hit a range of targets outside Russia—thereby adding to other states' concerns that they could be the target of a combined US/UK Trident strike.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

And he's quite right, nuclear weapons didn't do the USA a job of good at 9/11

did em loads of good at the end of WWII though

guess corbyn isnt a student of history

that is stupid
like saying the bear trap didn't stop the mice

Nukes were never meant to stop terrorists..

Nukes have prevented more deaths from warfare than another device, they made the cold war cold.

YES the UK is part of the western empire, No the UK is not independent.

Sorry anyone that support Labour this guy is beyond dumb, the Party must be a complete mess to even put him up as a candidate, let alone a leader

I think Veya that you missed the point by at least the width of a continent.

Of course nukes were not meant to stop terrorists, that's the point.  Threats today come from terrorists, not nuclear missles.  As for nukes keeping the cold war cold, I lived through the cold war, and did they hell, they kept people terrified for years that a madman in Russia or one in the USA would press the button, because there were a lot of mad men around.

Do you think places like Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Iceland, etc sit around in terror because they have no nuclear bombs?  Icelands doesn't even have an army.  No, it does things like prosecuting bankers instead lol

threats Today come for terrorist because of nukes
a conventional army would be nuked and gone So IF someone want to hurt the west the only option in non conventional armies a.k.a. terrorists. If we didn't have nukes they could use conventional armies again which are much worse.

Nukes are not meant to prevent terrorism (they are the ultimate terrorism) 
Nukes prevent conventional armies.

No we, NZ etc don't BECAUSE WE ARE PART OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE
the USA has them all for us You lot Just don't want to accept that the UK is not shit anymore you are just part of the USA lead Western empire. Absolutely Laughably how naive Brits must be the think Trident would be Independent. the Western empire is NEVER going to be lead by the UK again. the UK needs to accept this FACT.
we mine the uranium for the empire, that is our place.    



Like I said Moron statement exactly like saying "why didn't the bear trap catch the mice."


Cold war deaths versus WW2 death
Russia much bigger and weapons much stronger than the Nazi days, If it had been a hot war there would be no western world now, maybe not even a living planet.

And I doubt the fear was as great as if there were enemy tanks rolling down the street

Jeez Veya, you have just made my point for me. Brits rant on about we must have our own nuclear deterrent. Trident has never been independent and never will be. It's USAs

Ps you have still missed the point. And the threat of nuclear war is much more terrifying than a tank rolling down the street. A tank might take out a house. When you think there is going to be a nuclear war, and that threat was very real in the 50s re Cuba, you know the world will end. That was a defining moment of my childhood.

yeah as pointed out in another thread it would take a dozen of the world largest ever denoted nukes (only once in a test) Just to deal with ISIS.
Propaganda is terrifying... but to think the 50's were on par with being invaded is like saying the Blitz is on par with what is currently in Syria. it is bad to have you own side try and make you terrified through propaganda but not the same as having something there in your face on the street everyday that is really a visible demonstration to the fact you are conquered.


Ultimate truth is Nukes PREVENT WAR
the UK has trident because you were bloody well told to

sassy wrote:I think Veya that you missed the point by at least the width of a continent.

Of course nukes were not meant to stop terrorists, that's the point.  Threats today come from terrorists, not nuclear missles.  As for nukes keeping the cold war cold, I lived through the cold war, and did they hell, they kept people terrified for years that a madman in Russia or one in the USA would press the button, because there were a lot of mad men around.

Do you think places like Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Iceland, etc sit around in terror because they have no nuclear bombs?  Icelands doesn't even have an army.  No, it does things like prosecuting bankers instead lol

ironic that you dont understand that M.A.D.men were the very reason that nukes were not used

do you even know what MAD means and why the mad men were actually very sober sane men hence we didnt have a nuclear war??

i doubt it

sassy wrote:Ps you have still missed the point.  And the threat of nuclear war is much more terrifying than a tank rolling down the street. A tank might take out a house. When you think there is going to be a nuclear war, and that threat was very real in the 50s re Cuba, you know the world will end. That was a defining moment of my childhood.

so you ARE overreacting to the syria conflict

No the blitz was not on a par with Syria Veya, but I'm afraid you don't understand what the problem was in the 50s.  Not only would there not have been just one nuclear bomb let off, but a hail of them, but the fallout would have done the most damage, far more than the bombs themselves.

As for Trident, it's dangerous to the people around it:

Trident Whistle-blower Navy Engineer William McNeilly

William has been on the run since he gave a 19 page report of the safety problems with Trident Nuclear weapons. Wills report echos the revelations of less well known whistle-blowers who  also had to escape the UK for fear of reprisals.   








The Courage Foundation has opened an emergency fund for Trident whistleblower William McNeilly’s defence costs.
Able Seaman William McNeilly is a 25-year-old British Engineering Technician Weapons Engineer Submariner who has blown the whistle on major safety risks and cover-ups within the British Royal Navy’s Trident nuclear weapons programme, stating, “We are so close to a nuclear disaster it is shocking, and yet everybody is accepting the risk to the public.”
William McNeilly released a 16-page report to WikiLeaks, who published the original in full. The report draws on McNeilly’s experience in the Royal Navy to detail security lapses, safety hazards and a culture of secrecy and cover-up. In particular, McNeilly describes surprisingly weak security around the UK’s Trident nuclear submarine base, writing that “it’s harder to get into most nightclubs than it is to get into the [restricted] Green Area.”
McNeilly has turned himself in to police and is now being held in Royal Navy custody at an undisclosed location, where he faces potential prosecution. Whilst it is yet unclear what charges McNeilly will face, he is in military custody and the UK has a number of military charges that, like the Espionage Act in the United States, do not offer defendants the chance to make a public interest defence.
Regarding his reasons for acting as he has done, McNeilly explained the difficulty of achieving results through regular channels: “I’m releasing this information in this way because it’s the only way I can be sure it gets out. I raised my concerns about the safety and security of the weapon system through the chain of command on multiple occasions. My concern couldn’t have been any clearer.”
The Courage Foundation is taking McNeilly on as an emergency case, providing a defence fund immediately for the public to donate to, ensuring its possible for him to mount the best defence from the start.
Britain’s nuclear deterrent, which is based at Falsane in Scotland, has been the subject of increasing domestic controversy over recent months as the latest possible date for a political decision on its renewal draws near. The Scottish National Party, whose MPs won 56 of Scotland’s 59 parliamentary seats in the recent General Election, is strongly opposed to a Trident replacement being commissioned.
Among the most startling of McNeilly’s revelations include the fact that three missile launch tests failed, missile safety alarms were ignored, torpedo compartments were flooded and bags were not properly checked for security risks. He also claims that HMS Vanguard crashed into a French submarine in February 2009. McNeilly says there was a “massive cover up of the incident. For the first time the no personal electronic devices with a camera rule was enforced.” At the time, the Guardian reported that “the Ministry of Defence initially refused to confirm the incident” and that Vanguard suffered mere “scrapes”, but McNeilly says one officer told him, “We thought, this is it – we’re all going to die.”

A serving submariner has given a damning account of life onboard a Trident submarine earlier this year, describing the vessels as “a disaster waiting to happen”.  William McNeilly was training to work on the Trident nuclear weapons system.  He was on HMS Victorious during a three-month operational patrol which ended in April. He has published a detailed account of technical defects, security breaches and poor safety practice. The Navy has written down detailed procedures for safety and security with regard to Trident. McNeilly reveals that these rules are casually ignored on a daily basis. His account was reported by Rob Edwards in the Sunday Herald. The editorial in the paper argues that the whistleblowers report should spell the death knell for Trident.
John Ainslie, Coordinator of Scottish CND, said:
"McNeilly is a whistleblower who has revealed that there is a callous disregard for safety and security onboard Trident submarines.  He should be commended for his action, not hounded by the Ministry of Defence.  He has exposed the fact that Trident is a catastrophe waiting to happen - by accident, an act of terrorism or sabotage.  We are told that nuclear weapons keep us safe. This report shows that Trident puts us all in great danger.  McNeilly’s report would make a good script for a disaster movie.  Alarms warnings are muted, safety regulations ignored, shortcuts taken, exam results falsified and major defects overlooked. What he says is credible.  Official reports show that the number of safety incidents is very high and rising. McNeilly reveals what this actually means in practice."
This is the Petition organised by Scottish CND to support William and ask that he not be prosecuted.  https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-pardon-the-trident-whistleblower
Accident risk
One major concern is a fire in the Missile Compartment, which houses 8 Trident D5 missiles. Each missile contains tonnes of high explosive rocket fuel, topped with several 100-kiloton nuclear warheads. McNeilly describes an earlier incident on a Trident submarine. Toilet rolls, stacked in the Missile Compartment, caught fire. This filled several of the decks of the compartment with smoke.  The crew struggled to bring the incident under control and had difficulty using their Breathing Apparatus. 
Despite this earlier incident, he found that the risk of a fire in the Missile Compartment wasn’t taken seriously.  A major fire in the missile area can only be brought under control by flooding the compartment with Nitrogen. However the Nitrogen cylinders were significantly below the required pressure. Restrictions on personal electronic equipment, which could trigger an electrical fire, were not enforced. McNeilly told his superiors about rubbish near the missiles, which could have caused a fire. But no action was taken.
Elsewhere on the submarine there was a real risk of an electrical fire. No attempt was made to isolate electrical equipment after a leak was detected in the riders’ mess (riders are extra personnel on the vessel).  There were serious problems with condensation in parts of the submarine. A sprinkler system was accidentally activated in the torpedo room, without the electrical system having been isolated.
Crew members who work on the Trident missile system should have a thorough knowledge of CB8890, the manual for Trident safety and security. However McNeilly’s exam on the manual was a sham. Some who missed the test were allocated results at random.  One of the more senior staff said that the students didn’t really need to study the whole manual.
The status of the Trident missiles is monitored at the Control and Monitoring Panel (CAMP). This should be manned at all times, but often it was not. An audible alarm on the panel was muted because it was going off repeatedly. A second recurring alarm in the Missile Control Compartment, due to a problem with power from one of the Turbo Generators, was also ignored.
One of the more hazardous operations conducted by missile engineers is the insertion of DC/AC inverters in the missiles before a patrol and their removal after a patrol. To do this they have to open a hatch in each missile tube and gain direct access to the missiles. McNeilly describes how the removal of inverters at the end of their patrol was rushed and they did not follow the written procedures. 
The Navy is finding it difficult to recruit and train Trident missile engineers. The report from this submariner shows that they are placing people in positions of responsibility without adequate training and/or experience.
Other safety issues identified by McNeilly are:
•There was a list of defects on the Trident missile system on HMS Victorious and the list was almost full.
•One of the decks in the Missile Compartment was used as a gym and weights were thrown and dropped near missile equipment.
•Extra beds blocked access to DC switch boards & a hydraulics isolation valve.
•Use of banned substance in cleaning material, causing problems with fumes.
•The circumstances of the collision between HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant in February 2009 are a closely guarded secret, but one Vanguard crew member said “We thought, this is it we’re all going to die”.
•There was an incident when a generator compartment was flooded on a submarine and this could have resulted in the loss of the vessel if it had been handled differently.
Defects on Trident submarines
McNeilly says that at the end of the patrol they tested the Missile Compensation System on HMS Victorious. This system should quickly restore the balance of the submarine after a missile is launched, to enable each subsequent missile to be fired. The test was carried out three times, and each time the test failed.
The missile hatches on the submarine are powered by the Main Hydraulic Plant. At the end of the patrol they should have tested that they would have been able to open the hatches if required. But they were unable to conduct the test because of seawater in the hydraulic system.
These two problems meant that they could not confirm that the submarine could have launched its missiles when on patrol.
McNeilly says that there was noise from the aft diving planes when the vessel submerged at the start of its patrol and that this was part of a wider issue of aft diving planes jamming. Jammed planes can lead to the loss of the submarine in an uncontrolled dive.
There were problems with the Turbo Generators, which provide the main power source, and with one of the diesel generators, which are the back-up power source.  The safety of the submarine would be compromised if both sources of electrical power were lost.
In addition to these problems on HMS Victorious, McNeilly refers to defects on other submarines. He says that there are currently only two operational Trident submarines, probably due to refit and maintenance cycles, and that there are major defects on both the operational vessels. 
He visited a Trident submarine in the shiplift and many of the items of equipment were tagged with red markers, either for maintenance or defects. When they were told not to touch anything in the submarine’s control room, one of the crew responded “nothing works, you can touch what you like”.
Security breaches
McNeilly revealed two major breaches of security on HMS Victorious.  Despite not having DV security clearance, he was given access to Top Secret information showing where the submarine was carrying out its patrol. He also says he could have worked out the key to the Weapons Engineering Officer’s safe when he watched him enter the combination. This would have given the junior crew member unauthorised access to the trigger which launches Trident missiles. In addition, McNeilly was told of an officer who frequently left Top Secret documents lying on his bed.
He says there was a lack of adequate security controlling access to Trident submarines:
•The QM sentry (sailor in sentry box at gang plank) not an effective security check, as the sentry routinely lets people pass unchecked.
•MOD Police/Guard Force pass checks and gate checks not thorough.  Able to pass without showing face, including when raining.  Possible for extra people to get in as part of a group. Lots of missing RN ID cards circulating.
•Electronic gate access with PIN not working.
•No checks on bags being taken onto submarine by sailors or civilians. He was able to leave his bags next to the missiles on his first visit to a submarine.
Sloppy practice
McNeilly described how at times, such as the loading of stores before patrol, the submarine was chaotic. At the end of the patrol both the junior ranks and the senior ranks toilets were flooded and he notes that this was an apt summary of the state of affairs on this deadly nuclear-armed vessel.
Credibility of McNeilly’s report
While it is not possible to confirm many of the points made in McNeilly’s report, there is evidence to substantiate some of his remarks.
He says that Trident missile operators are been given responsibility too quickly without adequate training or experience. The Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator has said that a shortage of Suitably Qualified and Experience Personnel (SQEP) is the primary risk to the Defence Nuclear Programme (DNP). In his 2012/13 report the regulator said, “The ability of the Department to sustain a sufficient number of nuclear suitably competent military and civilian personnel is a long standing issue. It is identified as a significant threat to the safe delivery of the DNP”.  It remained the number one issue in the regulator’s 2013/14 report. Changes have been made to training under the Sustainable Submarine Manning Project.  Some individuals can be fast tracked through their training and experience.
McNeilly describes how, in the US Navy, two submariners go inside the missile tube, one on top of the other, to remove the DC/AC inverters from the missiles at the end of a patrol. A photo taken on US Navy Trident submarine confirms that this is the case. It shows the leg and foot of one man who is lying inside the missile tube. A second man is on the ladder facing inside, on top of the first man. A third sailor is in the foreground.
 















McNeilly mentions finding rubbish in the missile compartment, reporting this to superiors and no action being taken. One of the duties of a Missile Technician on a US submarine is to patrol the Missile Compartment looking for hazards like this. UK practice is likely to be the same, at least in theory.
McNeilly describes hearing of a fire in the missile compartment of a Trident submarine. While there is no other public evidence of this incident, the description of problems with a lack of adequate breathing apparatus is consistent with recorded accounts of fires on Royal Navy submarines. His claim that a very small fire can produce a lot of smoke on a submarine is confirmed by other sources.
He describes how it is possible to walk through security barriers without your pass being properly checked.  In October 1988 a protestor from Faslane Peace Camp was able to walk through several checkpoints, onto a Polaris submarine and then into the vessel’s Control Room (Herald report). In November 2000 a car-load of tourists accidentally drove into Faslane and was able to get through the checkpoint without any passes (source).
McNeilly quotes CB8890, the instructions for the safety and security of the Trident II D5 strategic weapon system. There is a reference to this manual in a defence safety review. The paragraphs from CB8890 which he quotes are similar to nuclear safety documents which have been released under the Freedom of Information Act.  
The submariner’s report suggests that there are a high number of breaches of safety procedures on Trident submarines. This is consistent with an acknowledged rise in nuclear incidents. The number of nuclear safety incidents at Faslane and Coulport rose from 68 in 2012/13 to 105 in 2013/14 (source). Between 2008/09 and 2012/13 there were 316 nuclear safety events, 71 fires and 3,243 “near miss” incidents at Faslane and Coulport (source). There were 44 fires on Royal Navy nuclear submarines between 2009 and 2013 (source).
http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/trident-whistle-blower-navy-engineer.html

forget it sassy

now one is listening to you

in fact i predcit we will use nukes long before we disarm them, you may as well stop your whinging and accept nuclear annihilation

Nope, it's you they don't listen to, the very name of 'smelly bandit' makes people roll their eyes lol

well sassy, im on the team with the nukes

youre on the team smoking joints and shreiking incoherently

who do you think is listening to who??

Not having nukes is fine for a country which minds its own business, and doesn't get involved in trying to help others, or interferes in other countries. It's not a good idea for the UK at the moment.

smelly-bandit wrote:well sassy, im on the team with the nukes

youre on the team smoking joints and shreiking incoherently

who do you think is listening to who??

I think that several people on this forum smoke a lot of joints - probably Camberwell carrots.

Raggamuffin wrote:Not having nukes is fine for a country which minds its own business, and doesn't get involved in trying to help others, or interferes in other countries. It's not a good idea for the UK at the moment.

what sassy and her hippy crew dont understand is the reality of the world, if the UK disarmed, the only thing it would change would be our poistion on the world stage which would be in the rear

having nukes means we are on the share holders table and get to have a say in what happens, if we give up our nukes we give up our seat at the table and can no longer have influence over anything good or bad.

secondly if we disarmed, North korea, pakistan, india,france,china,USA and russia and anyone else ive forgotten will STILL have nukes.

thirdly when youre in a room full of trigger happy maniacs who all pointing guns at each other with the full intention of killing each other,and the only thing preventing a bloodbath is the fact that EVERYONE in the room has a gun pointing at everyone else

The worst thing to do would be to throw your own guns away, the best thing to do is to pretend that you are just as crazy as everyone else. less guns in the room means there is a bigger chance of surviving a bloodbath, and a  gambling lunatic might just take those odds    

everyone likes a lunatic, but trying to reason with one will just make him mad and unpredictable