Now, some people argue that the effects of such weapon would be concentrated at a close range and would not affect the rest of the world, let alone neighboring countries, and the only aftermatch would be civillians dying a horrible death. The same kind of people that go against every single thing science has proven about the obvious effects of such weapons are the same kind of people that deny global warming to be caused by polution and blame it to be a liberal commie invention to end freedom or something (might as well deny the Holocaust, as some of these people are the ones who happily sang with Borat to "throw the Jew down the well").
What is the porpouse of achieving a higher atomic arsenal other than the obvious lobby from companies who produce this sort of stuff? What is the target? If it is so obvious who the target is and that the effects of the bomb will not harm the planet, why not nuke them now? Are you REALLY expecting a M.A.D. assurance from "teh evil terrorists"? And who are they? B'aath? Osama Bin Laden? North Korea? OK if you actually escalate to the point of using a nuclear weapon against any of those targets (and the only one easily found on Google Maps is North Korea), if you reach THAT point, don't you think it'll be in a scenario in which NY City is vanished through a nuclear bomb? WHAT is the point? Please prove me that ripping off missle treaties and bringing NUCLEAR WEAPONS into the game is best for the world, and explain me a scenario in which this sort of weapon would be used. Please.