> They also used depleted uranium, which is banned by international law
Uh, no it's not. It's not even covered by one of the treaties banning weapons that the US hasn't signed up to (such as the cluster munition or landmine treaties).
> No. Depleted uranium rounds have been used in previous conflicts. They exploded in those conflicts. There was no material radioactive impact of this.
> A dirty bomb would render areas uninhabitable - or at least dangerous - for decades after a war is over.
50+ years on from the aerial minelaying of the Vietnam War people there and in surrounding countries are still being maimed and killed by landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO).
War is a dirty business with generational consequences.
Many non-nuclear industrial processing operations could also be targeted in a war and leave a deadly footprint for decades.
Existing nuclear plants were built at large scale, future nuclear power plants could be made smaller and more widely distributed.
> Sometimes I wonder about a worldwide, UN-controlled authority to dismantle any organization and factories that build firearms or other weapons that use powder.
Well, banning nuclear weapons (and establishing an inspection schedule) would be a good start: https://www.icanw.org/
> None of the countries that have developed nuclear weapons have gotten their plutonium from nuclear waste
Just because someone hasn't done it before doesn't mean someone won't in the future.
You're also ignoring the larger threat to that plutonium; the issue that someone may not want to separate the contaminants. If they're making a dirty bomb, they don't care if it has contaminants or not.
> Have we been able to stop North Korea and Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
Yes, obviously. They may be working on it to some extent, but they are yet to actually develop a nuclear weapon, and there is no reason to be certain they will one day build one.
Also, there is another research area that has been successfully banned across the world: human cloning. Some quack claims notwithstanding, it's not being researched anywhere in the world.
> Otherwise, someone could simply extrapolate from our use of earlier weapons that we will probably have nuclear war, so all activism about anything is moot.
I don't think we should stop nuclear weapons either...
> Nuclear weapons are the reason I can raise my children in a relative peace.
You can raise your children in relative peace because the social contract still holds. The fact that a neighbour you don't like hasn't walked into your house and shot everyone to death, has nothing to do with your goverment/military stockpiling nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons need to be dismantled or stored in neutral territory in case we encounter belligerent aliens.
Tell that to the mothers in Iraq giving birth to deformed babies every single day.
reply