all countries have to denuclearise

Thank you for complementing my skill. Nuclear weapons are indeed dangerous. They are powerful and overuse can lead to massive ecological and environmental damage up to and including an ELE (extinction level event). This does not mean that they will lead to misuse or an ELE. The argument against nuclear weapons, however, only reached maturity long after they had been developed in mass quantity. Any argument for denuclearizing a current and long-standing nuclear power is effectively a counter-arms-race. As I already said in my, history shows stability in the restraint of current nuclear powers. Neither NK nor Iran are current nuclear powers, and communism was always a cultural motivation for revolution and change rather than a stable political system. China is adapting without choice after observing the fall of the former USSR. Russia is no longer communist and is recovering economically. The baseline education norm in both countries is adapting as a result of economic and social pressure, which increases future likelyhood of a possible peaceful treaty that would allow for full elimination of nuclear ballistic war. This is a goal, however, and does not address the current reality in the world.Nagasaki and Heroshima were first use scenarios where a few historical facts come into play. The knowledge of the fallout potential predicted that radiation would be short-lived. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima have recovered and are currently home to millions of Japanese, a mere 70 years later. On a world history scale, this defeats the arguments against tactical usage. Further denaturing the argument, current nuclear weapons have far less radiation (gama and alpha particles are reduced tremendously) with a larger footprint and far higher reaction mass ratio in the warheads. This means that they can be used tactically with a larger footprint and even less long-term damage from fallout. Knowing this, current nuclear powers are more likely to use them tactically, which means that political stability and agreement must be reached, especially economically, before the pressure to reduce the threat is sufficient to have any political leverage against the tactical military justifications.Any argument that we need them hinges on the fact of the threat of tactical retaliation at ballistic ranges There existinance is an economic and political safegard against the long-standing human history of military economic dispute. Access to resources and the economic strength that follows directly influences foreign policy, debt, and political stance. Thus it is and will continue to be the primary motive for retaining tactical nuclear weapons as area denial defense against military seisure of resources. This hinges on the fact that they can be launched, by any side that simply lies, against any side that tells the truth. The political fallout might be high, but unless there is a check on the power of aggression through force of arms we are left with the victor of any conflict being capable of exercising 'right by might' diplomacy.In the end, it comes down to trust. They are here, they can be used, do we trust the other people with them enough to expose ourself to deciet. The answer is still 'we trust you but not that much'.