Lunatics end up in power because sometimes only crazy people can stand to do what it takes to get to the top. If only the psychopaths survive the struggle, that's who will end up ruling. Nazi Germany, for example, favored the promotion of bright, loyal, psychopathic personalities. Heil Hitler himself, Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbels, Frank, Goring, ‎Ernst Röhm, etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand, it would appear that quite sane people are in charge of places like Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom and maybe France. At least, "quite normal people" are in charge IF, and only IF, the societies over which Putin, Trump, May, and maybe Le Pen rule are sane.

Erich Fromm (The Sane Society) argues that many societies (possibly yours) are actually insane, and that there is a reverse diagnosis system: People who can get along in a crazy society are deemed sane, and people who can not get along in a crazy system are deemed insane. If not insane, then at least redundant.

Europe and North America do not have a monopoly on crazy societies and crazy leaders. They are all over the place. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan... — Bitter Crank

So we end up with your original question as to why nuclear weapons are built and why would we allow crazy leaders to have access to them when we already know that nuclear weapons fit the paradigm in which man has for as long as there has been history has fought wars and for as long as there has been history we have lived under dictatorships and plutocracies which very often have crazy people in power.

Perhaps if the people in the world got to see the effect of a few more nuclear weapons (as well as how much POWER than have then the one's dropped in Japan at the end of WWII) go off in major metropolitan areas we would do things a little differently but even then I don't know if that would make a difference. Human beings sometimes learn from their mistakes but we are not that good at learning from mistakes we have yet to make, even if they could end the world.

Right now, the only thing keeping things in relative order is int he event of a major nuclear war to top 5% to 1% would have to scrounge and scrap much like the rest of us animals do nowadays in order to survive (where as those of us who already do that DON'T have to worry about having to do that as almost all of us will already be dead, or at least the lucky ones will be). And for those in power, the very thought of having to live like the rest of us do is something worse than that so they are VERY motivated NOT to have a nuclear war. So in the end it may be greed and the desire to maintain existing status quo that keeps us from nuclear war than any real humanity coming from those in charge of such issues. I'm sure that is something pleasant to think about at night before someone goes off to sleep.

5% to 1% would have to scrounge and scrap much like the rest of us animals do nowadays in order to survive — dclements

"The living will envy the dead." Even a limited nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States, or Pakistan and India, or Iran and Israel--let alone an unlimited nuclear exchange everywhere--would reduce humans to scavenger status. It is difficult to describe just how utterly changed the terms of existence would be.

All of the infrastructure on which we depend for survival (given life as we know it) would collapse. Thanks to EMP, transportation and electronic communication would be gone. Any internal combustion` motor depending on microchips (most of them) would not work. Most electronic equipment would not work, even if one could supply it with electricity. Cities are very dependent on pumps to move water up and move sewage out. These would not be working. Refrigeration and heating would mostly disappear. There would be no lights after sundown. Factories would be silent--including factories that make pharmaceuticals.

Presumably I guess humanity will just have to hold its collective breath and hope the leaders have some sense to avoid nuclear war. I just do not understand what North Korea has to gain from their weaponry. In a best case scenario they do what exactly? They can't even attempt a strike without being taken apart. So what if they target and hit a few targets (Seoul, USA, Japan, all unlikely), they still lose at the end and badly. Let's just say it would be a very quick war... (unless Russia and China want to inexplicably get involved) Surely they would have some sense to know not to take the rest of world down with them? They aren't nearly as insane as the media has made them look.

Given that nuclear war is madness, and we are not mad, then it is common sense that the least stable personality will dominate. "Don't make me mad, you won't like me when I'm mad." So we have a competition between N. Korea, China, Russia and the US to see who is the maddest leader, and so who will dominate. It's a game of global chicken.

Greatness is another word for madness.

Even a limited nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States, or Pakistan and India, or Iran and Israel--let alone an unlimited nuclear exchange everywhere--would reduce humans to scavenger status. It is difficult to describe just how utterly changed the terms of existence would be. — Bitter Crank

Actually, the change would be more a mental issue than physical on the global scale. Of course, the term Limited nuclear war is a bit puzzling.

A Limited war between Israel and Iran or Pakistan and India would have an enormous impact where the bombs were used with a huge loss of life and devastate the countries themselves, but not much of an impact in other places. Israel has perhaps 200-300 nukes. Pakistan maybe 2000 at most. The estimates done during the Cold War when both Superpowers had multiple times more nuclear weapons than now isn't comparable to a limited nuclear war. There's a vast difference of having some thousand warheads or tens of thousands warheads.

The 80's was the age of nuclear weapons:


Just think about it. The US made over 200 atmospheric tests as did Russia. Now the radiation fallout from the +400 tests can be picked up, yet the World hasn't changed. Some Chernobyl accident had a fallout of a Limited nuclear war, basically. The biggest atmospheric test was about 50 MT. Largest Pakistani or Indian nukes are perhaps at the 0,15 MT - 0,5 MT range, hence that one atmospheric test was equivalent of about a hundred plus nuclear weapons being used. The bigger impact would be emotional and psychological. Nuclear war would be a reality, which would have a big impact on the way we look at things and how we look at our times.

Yet no Mad-max outcome would happen. Our way of life wouldn't change so much if India and Pakistan or Iran and Israel chose to kill millions of their own people. Just like we could live quite happily here in Europe in the 1990's when about 140 000 people were killed in Europe.

One small difference between the atomic testing of the 1940s through the signing of the atmospheric test ban treaty and a nuclear war involving a "relatively small number of atomic bombs" is that the "test bombs" weren't exploded in dense population areas, except for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Were the Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians, and Israelis to have a little atomic war all to themselves, most of the detonations would be ground or air bursts in population centers (assuming the delivery systems all worked properly). This would result in a high level of social, political, and economic disruption.

Granted, wiping Israel, Pakistan, or Iran off the political map -- India might be a bit large for Pakistan to eliminate as a going concern -- might not disrupt your or my daily schedule entirely (there would be megatons of fascinating news coverage to watch). But I think the consequences would be rather larger than several Chernobyls or Fukushimas.

Question about the stockpile graph: Surely stockpiles of warheads in the US and Russia haven't been diminished that much since their peak, have they? I realize an atomic bomb can be decommissioned, taken apart, and rendered into something that isn't a bomb, but there isn't a solution to the many thousands of plutonium cores, for example; they are still around--somewhere--I assume watched over very carefully, but I am not sure about that.

Its been a rather obvious fact of game theory that the more irrational you appear the more rational you actually are in game theory in achieving strategic advantages. So, what does one do? Id say enjoy the show. If Kennedy acted rationally during the Cuban middle crisis its rather certain that you would see further escalation in tensions. Its counterintuitive at first but makes sense when you want to cow down your adversary.

Surely stockpiles of warheads in the US and Russia haven't been diminished that much since their peak, have they? — Bitter Crank

Bitter, nuclear non-proliferation agreements talks did have an effect. It's a thing that people don't realize that especially the nuclear deterrent in the US and Russia diminished in size greatly when the Cold War ended. It gives also perspective how dangerous the Cold War was in the 1980's.

And never heard about the nicest story ever to happen with nuclear weapons, the successfull Megatons to megawatts-project that started in 1993 and ended in 2013? 500 tons of Russian nuclear warheads were converted to nuclear fuel that the US bought.

Hence the warheads that were designed to destroy Americans cities ended up giving electricity to the same cities. Sometimes the politicians get things right.

I was recently, briefly discussing why nuclear weapons were created in the first place. — Andrew4Handel

I don't think there's much, if any, controversy about the US development of the A-bomb. It started early in WW2, when the Allies were aware that Germany was working on it too. If they got an A-bomb before the Allies, the consequences would be horrible. So they had to develop one.

The controversy is over whether, having developed one, it should have been used on the two Japanese cities. It's a very difficult and complex issue.My view on it has changed several times in my life, based on new historical information, and may do so again.

There's an excellent novel by CP Snow about the development of the A-bomb, seen from the British perspective. I can't remember the name. It may have been 'The New Men' or something like that. It was written in the fifties or sixties and gives a good sense of the feeling of urgency about the project. IIRC it also covers the devastation of some of the scientists when the weapon was used.

So you avoid being nuked by nuking 1st, you say? How does that even work?
And yes, I could use a nuclear weapon, where can I get one?