[AFAIK]

The nuclear deterrent and MAD are a strong deterrent to direct confrontation between nuclear powers and may have prevented millions of battlefield deaths and non-combatant kills from aerial bombardment.

The effects of a nuclear attack on a nation's major cities and critical infrastructure would be so severe it would kill millions and be all but impossible for society to recover from. The fallout and potential nuclear winter could wreak havoc on entire continents.

I don't know how to vote on this. :/

[Zionist Nationalist]

Nuclear powers are safer

[One Degree]

Other. The temporary relief from World War makes us somewhat safer, but the future could be disastrous.
I see no way to answer this question without being clairvoyant.
We still manage to keep wars going around the world.
We still encourage group against group.
Safety is a relative term to the point of being meaningless. You can never be safe.

[MistyTiger]

Every country is less safe.

Once you have something that dangerous, others will want it. They make try to steal it or duplicate it. It just creates this atmosphere of you have it and I want it too! It creates more tension and jealousy. And of course, countries will use it as leverage to get their way by intimidating the weaker, classic bully behaviour.

I would feel safer if all the nukes were destroyed so not even terrorists could get their hands on them. You never know which legitimate organization has a mole and you can never be 100% positive that none of your people are terrorists.

[Suntzu]

Nuclear powers are not subject to being invaded by the U.S.

[One Degree]

Nuclear powers are not subject to being invaded by the U.S.

The major powers have been strategizing limited nuclear war since the Cold War.
You should not feel so secure.

[MistyTiger]

Nuclear powers are not subject to being invaded by the U.S.

The US can find seemingly valid reasons to invade any country if it suits their purposes.

Why did the US invade Iraq? Someone made up a bogus report and it was submitted to Congress and blindly approved. Maybe most of Congress was taking bribes.

[Suntzu]

Why didn't we invade North Korea or Pakistan?

[One Degree]

Why didn't we invade North Korea or Pakistan?

So far the US has had nothing to gain from such an invasion. North Korea's actions may change that.
Countries are ran by people and people do unpredictable things.
I believe within 5 years you will see Russia, China, and the US taking united action against North Korea.

[Pants-of-dog]

The governments of nuclear countries believe (more or less correctly) that having nuclear weapons makes them safer. They also believe that if others get them, their safety is threatened. In terms of foreign policy, they then act with the belief that nuclear weapons make it safer for the country with the nuclear weapon. I assume they also react this way.

But for the rest of the world, the countries without nuclear weapons, it is a less safe world. There are a few countries without nuclear weapons that are safer, such as Canada, but they are the exception.

[XogGyux]

I think nuclear weapons coming into existence traded the possibility of large global powers conflicts for a possibility (although smaller) of global annihilation.
In other words. I think it has reduced to possibility of large powers (such as the US and Russia and China) to collide (though not completely eliminated that possibility.
In exchanged we now have a tiny (but real) possibility of total global destruction which we realistically did not had earlier.
So makes all countries less safe.

[MistyTiger]

Why didn't we invade North Korea or Pakistan?

I agree with what OneDegree has said. They do not pose a threat to us yet. The US has not felt like engaging either country in war since we are occupied with occupying Iraq and fighting the "war on terror."

I also think that in the future, the US might seek action against North Korea. North Korea is seen as one of those evil countries but they have not threatened any of the US assets or comforts so we can afford to leave them alone and play nice.

[Decky]

They make worker's states safer from US invasion.

[snapdragon]

No, nukes don't make us safer. I'm not sure how something that has been designed to blow everyone for miles around to kingdom come can make us safer.

[JohnRawls]

It makes nuclear powers and everybody else safer.

Massive confrontation between 2 super powers becomes very unlikely because the damage that they will cause will outweight the benefits anyone can get because of the war. Hence a war between 2 nuclear powers is very unlikely.

This also prevents other countries from being proxies in this massive war so if a country is a part of a nuclear armed military alliance or allied to a nuclear armed nation then highly likely nobody is going to inavde or attack you on a massive scale.

Nukes make it possible for us to live our globalised life and worry mostly about a Coup De Tat at worst in your country. Globalisation would be VERY unlikely without nuclear weapons. Why think of ways to trade commodities-goods-services when you can just force countries to surrender them-give them away for free. (Nukes make it impossible)

[Nonsense]

Nuclear powers are safer

Oh, really?

The question is rather like asking people if they feel 'richer' because of quantitative easing(Q.E),although the initial 'benefactors' of such 'largesse', the company accounts receiving the credits may think that they are, the taxpayers or public services that pay increased taxes or cuts in public services do not think so.

The fact that a country feels the 'need' to spend billions of money that it does not have on such projects, illustrates the folly of those governments, who will eventually pay a political price.

For this country, we are virtually bankrupt(thanks to uncontrolled mass migration),that successive governments feel the need to pay for projects like Trident with printed money, shows that governments have absolutely no credibility whatsoever on our economy.
In the not too distant future, our national debt will no longer be sustainable, a collapse of the £pound is on the cards, simply because of Q.E, as we have no assets, just deficit & debts.
When that collapse of our currency happens(it will), the effect on our attitude to 'foreigners' may change, just too late, as the damage is now hardwired into our future national outcome.

When all is said\done, it is pure folly & to no avail.

Obama, with Trump on the horizon, our 'government' bows prostrate before the American devil.

When Obama visited Europe a little while back, he turned up the anti-Russian rhetoric over the Ukraine, then he scurried back to America waiting for that pair of 'Tory' idiots, FALLON & HAMMOND to put the foot on the accelerator of 'defence' spending for which they duly obliged.

That decision was activated under the fig leaf of moving the budget deficit goalpost beyond 2020,thus deepening our current financial position & preparing the ground for deeper more radical cuts post 2020 general election.

[anasawad]

The answer is simple. If you have a weapon, at some point, you're going to use it.
Its just how things works. And nukes are no exception, specially with the collection of mad men in power of nuclear countries.

[Political Interest]

Every country is less safe

Nuclear weapons were invented as a way of bullying other countries into submission or preventing occupation by a foreign power. In a world where two powers both possess nuclear weapons there is an irresolvable situation where neither country can be occupied, but each one has the means to destroy the other. If nuclear power A is about to occupy nuclear power B the latter will choose to fire ICBMs as a last ditch attempt to save itself. The effort will be fruitless because nuclear power A will retaliate with a nuclear strike of a similar force. The end result is that both countries are completely destroyed and the radiation poisons all of humanity.

According to the MAD theory such a scenario is impossible because the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation prevents a third world war. However, this is not absolutely guaranteed. Given the right circumstances a nuclear exchange could always still happen.

Conventional weapons may kill millions but at least they will not result in the absolute and irreversible destruction of a country. An occupied power can still resist its invaders through guerrilla warfare and it can even wait for liberation by a third country. Using nuclear weapons as a last ditch effort to "save" the country eliminates such possibilities. France was occupied by Nazi Germany and the occupation continued until the Germans were forced out by the Allied powers. If both France and Nazi Germany had nuclear weapons it may have been possible for the French to keep their independence but there would be no more French, Germans or probably any other Europeans left alive.

As terrible as it may be, its probably better to resist an occupier after they have entered one's country than to utterly destroy him but in doing so kill yourself as well. It is always possible to resist and conceptualise long term solutions to force him out. Maybe you will see him leave when you are a grey haired old man and it will be your grandchildren that can live in freedom? A nuclear exchange means never having grandchildren full stop.

[Suntzu]

"Conventional weapons may kill millions but at least they will not result in the absolute and irreversible destruction of a country."

Yep, Japan no longer exist and Hiroshima and Nagasaki are uninhabitable wastelands.

[anasawad]

Japan did not have nuclear weapons. The bombs used were insignificantly small compared to today's nuclear bombs.
And radiation effects can still be seen in diseases and genes of many Japanese people today due to the nuclear weapons.

If the same happened today, but with both countries having nukes and by today's strength.
Both the US and Japan will be destroyed. And any survivors along with the rest of the world would probably have to deal with nuclear winter which in almost all cases would lead to mass extinction like had happened did 65 million years ago.