Nuclear Zero is a point at which we no longer have any operational nuclear weapons in the word. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_debate[/url] Feel free to speculate on "could it" as well. Interesting points to consider: General argument against nuclear weapons: [quote]Some scientists project that a war between two countries that resulted in 100 Hiroshima-size atomic explosions could cause significant loss of life, in the tens of millions. There could also be much soot thrown up into the atmosphere which would blanket the earth, causing the disruption of food chains in what is termed Nuclear Winter[/quote] General argument for nuclear weapons (that is more nuanced than "herr-der if we can build it we should have it.") [quote]Others argue that nuclear weapons have made the world relatively safer, with peace through deterrence and through the stability–instability paradox, including in south Asia. Kenneth Waltz has argued that nuclear weapons have helped keep an uneasy peace, and further nuclear weapon proliferation might help avoid the large scale conventional wars that were so common prior to their invention at the end of World War II. In the July 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs Waltz took issue with the view of most U.S., European, and Israeli, commentators and policymakers that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable. Instead Waltz argues that it would probably be the best possible outcome, as it would restore stability to the Middle East by balancing Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons.[/quote]