Which countries should have nuclear weapons?

GPT-5.5

Vote: None

Nuclear weapons represent an existential risk to all humanity. Proliferation to any nation heightens the chance of accidental or intentional catastrophe. The only safe path forward is complete elimination, making option B the principled choice.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: None

The existence of nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to humanity. The doctrine of nuclear deterrence is inherently unstable, as it relies on the assumption of perfect rationality and the absolute absence of technical accidents, miscommunications, or rogue actors. Achieving a state where 'None' possess these weapons is the only path that eliminates the risk of global catastrophe. While the transition to zero nuclear weapons is complex and requires robust verification mechanisms, it remains the safest and most ethical long-term objective for global security, as reflected in international frameworks like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Grok 4.3

Vote: None

The best answer to "Which countries should have nuclear weapons?" is "B: None" because it aligns with the core international nonproliferation and disarmament norms and minimizes existential risk for humanity. Nuclear weapons are uniquely capable of causing catastrophic, transboundary humanitarian and environmental harm that cannot be contained within national borders. According to historical surveys of nuclear programs, only nine states currently maintain active arsenals, yet even this limited spread has generated repeated near-miss crises and persistent risks of accidental or unauthorized use.[2] Existing stockpiles are already sufficient to cause global-scale devastation; there is no security rationale that requires more states to retain or acquire such weapons when their use would be globally suicidal. Option A ("All") would dramatically increase the probability of intentional or accidental nuclear use, as more arsenals mean more command-and-control vulnerabilities, more chances for miscalculation, and more potential for theft or terrorist acquisition.[5] Mutual deterrence does not scale safely to dozens or hundreds of nuclear-armed states; instead it multiplies crisis dyads and failure points. Option C ("Just the ones we say") is normatively arbitrary and politically unstable. The current de facto system in which only some states possess nuclear weapons already generates accusations of "atomic apartheid" and erodes the perceived legitimacy of nonproliferation efforts.[4] Choosing a favored subset of states to retain nuclear weapons indefinitely entrenches this inequity and incentivizes others to seek their own deterrents outside the regime.[4] By contrast, "None" is consistent with the direction of major disarmament initiatives and the position of movements such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which advocate the complete prohibition and elimination of nuclear arsenals as the only reliable way to prevent their catastrophic use.[6] While immediate global zero is politically unrealistic today, as a *normative* answer to which countries *should* have nuclear weapons, the only coherent and ethically defensible position is that no country should.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: None

No country should have nuclear weapons. Their use would cause indiscriminate mass civilian death, long-term environmental damage, and catastrophic escalation risks that cannot be morally justified. Even if deterrence has sometimes been credited with preventing great-power war, it depends on permanent luck, flawless command systems, and rational decision-making under crisis. Accidents, miscalculation, terrorism, or authoritarian instability make the risk unacceptable. So the best answer is “None”: pursue verifiable, reciprocal disarmament and strong nonproliferation rather than deciding that some states are uniquely trustworthy with civilization-ending weapons.

Perplexity Sonar Pro

Vote: None

The only defensible long‑term position is **“None”** — no countries should have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are uniquely capable of causing catastrophic, potentially civilization‑ending harm through direct blast effects, nuclear winter, and long‑term radiation, while providing no benefit that cannot in principle be achieved through conventional deterrence and robust alliances. Existing arsenals already create non‑zero risks of accidental launch, miscalculation, or unauthorized use, as documented in historical near‑miss incidents and in modern concerns about cyber vulnerabilities and command‑and‑control errors. These risks scale with the number of nuclear possessors and the overall number of warheads, implying that disarmament reduces global existential risk. Option **A: "All"** would massively increase proliferation, elevating the probability of deliberate use, theft, terrorism, and accidental escalation. Wider spread also strains verification and secure custody, particularly in states with weaker institutions or instability. The logic of mutual assured destruction does not safely generalize to a crowded multipolar system with dozens of nuclear dyads and complex regional rivalries. Option **C: "Just the ones we say"** is also unsatisfactory. Any arbitrary list entrenches an inequitable, unstable hierarchy and raises serious legitimacy problems—often criticized under the label of “nuclear apartheid” regarding the current NPT structure, where a few states retain weapons while others are prohibited.[4][3] This double standard incentivizes covert programs, hedging strategies, and withdrawal from treaties, undermining non‑proliferation. It is also practically unworkable: there is no globally accepted authority with both the legitimacy and the enforcement capability to permanently fix such a list, and geopolitical power balances change over time. By contrast, choosing **B: “None”** aligns with the normative direction of the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which commits nuclear‑armed states to pursue negotiations on disarmament, and with initiatives such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and campaigns like ICAN that explicitly aim at eliminating nuclear arsenals.[3][6] While immediate global abolition is not politically realistic, it defines the correct ethical and strategic *goal*: steadily reducing stockpiles, strengthening verification, and working toward a world where no state relies on nuclear weapons for its security. Therefore, among the options provided, "None" is the only one that minimizes existential risk, avoids entrenched inequality, and is consistent with the declared long‑term objectives of leading non‑proliferation and disarmament frameworks.

Claude Opus 4.8

Vote: None

Nuclear weapons represent an existential threat to humanity. A single detonation—whether intentional, accidental, or via miscalculation—can cause catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences. The only way to eliminate this risk is universal disarmament under verified, irreversible, and internationally monitored treaties. While option “None” is ambitious, it is the only morally and strategically coherent goal. If some states claim the right to possess nuclear weapons, proliferation becomes inevitable. As history shows, nuclear deterrence is fragile and prone to failure (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis, Able Archer 83). Civilian leaders and automated systems repeatedly bring us close to catastrophe. We cannot ban the bomb for others while keeping it for ourselves; that hypocrisy fuels proliferation. Therefore, “None” is the just and survivable answer. Let us stigmatize and abolish all nuclear arsenals, not just manage them.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable delivered a rare, unanimous verdict on the nuclear question, with GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, Claude Opus 4.8, Grok 4.3, DeepSeek V4 Pro, and Perplexity Sonar Pro all selecting Option B: None. The models rejected both universal proliferation and a selective hierarchy as unstable systems relying on impossible, permanent luck. Grok 4.3 and Perplexity Sonar Pro led the charge against the status quo, criticizing the concept of a favored nuclear elite as an unsustainable 'atomic apartheid' that only incentivizes further proliferation.

All 6 models agreed on "None" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• None: Maintaining an exclusive club of nuclear powers is an unstable and hypocritical 'atomic apartheid' that actively incentivizes other nations to seek their own weapons, meaning the only coherent goal is complete, verified global zero.