1 - They have faced off for no apparent reason other than 'stopping the spread of communism.' Is communism really so bad we waged war in various lesser nations throughout history? The reasoning for stopping the spread of communism isn't apparent to me.
2 - All costs a lot of money? Well, where does government get it's taxes from? The people. It's not like it's spending it's own money. The people in power will spend as much as necessary to maintain every lie they've told. Why wouldn't they?
3 - Why keep it up? Oppression through fear.
4 - What rogue nations? You mean, North Korea, who's in China's pocket? China, who's in Russia's pocket? In fact, no rogue nations have nukes. Pawns of super powers are allowed to have them to protect the interests of the super powers abroad.
5 - Would it have been better is very subjective, but no. Wouldn't it have been better if we didn't fight in Vietnam and Korea? Wouldn't it have been better if we just stayed the hell out of WWI and WWII in the first place? Either way, if there is an agreement, if one side exposes the other side, both ends lose control over the weapons that don't exist, because each side could make the same exact claims. As far as spies go, you watch too many movies. And again, it's not the government's money to spend in the first place, why the hell do they care how much they spend? That's right, they don't.
6 - Why would the Japanese just suddenly give up? Perhaps they realized there would be no ground invasion, and the US was just going to fire-bomb them into oblivion. We obviously showed no remorse for civilian casualties throughout the entire course of the war. They probably realized we were willing to completely exterminate them if they didn't throw in the towel. When you realize that your enemy is out for the lust of blood and has the undeniable capability to finish you off, you quit. With or without a new type of bomb. Dead people are dead people. Japan is infamously shorthanded in the natural resource department, and they very well could have been out of the means to resist.
1 - Actually I was talking about the several instances when we faced of with the Soviet Union in regards of nuclear weapons - such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Why keep the charade up if it frequently leads to political standoffs and gives no real benefit then a money hole to dump funds in?
2- How does saying you have nuclear weapons to your people give you power? You say it helps them control their populations better - in what way? Its not like they're threatening their own people with them.
3 - See #2. Add-on- What opporession?
4 - OKay.... but what are these interests that can be supported by saying you have nuclear weapons? In modern history - nuclear weapons have only lead to the super powers being vunerable (and therefore - impotent) in terms of fighting a nuclear state becuase they have the option of utterly devastating you. Why keep up the charade, if the dissolution of nuclear weapons actually removes this power from rouge states and takes away their bargaining chip?
5 - This was your funniest response in my mind. Losing the weapon hardly matters when you don't already have it (USSR right after WW2) and presents an excellent opportunity to humilate your former allies. And the rest of your "argument" is that governments don't care what they spend on.... wow. Great reason... the government feels the need to spend billions to both support the nuclear arvims it has but to have a conspiracy so that everyone thiks it has.... all so it can get in fake fights with other super powers and have rouge nations get a fake bargaining chip so as to weaken its own foreign policy. Great reasoning- top notch stuff.
"As far as spies go, you watch too many movies." - Okay.... not a real reason to countradict the infiltration of the Manhatten Project, but I guess you had to say something. I also find it funny that you believe the world is working together to keep an imaginary weapon system real in the public's eyes... and yet you smirk upon spying activities.... unusual.
6 - The Japanese were well aware that the US wasn't just going to "fire-bomb" them away - no war has ended like that. Thats why we had to invade Germany to end the war - no matter how much we bombed them, they refused to give in until the Russians completely took over Berlin. The Japanese had even more radical mindset and commonly used suicide tactic the even the Waffen SS would a balked at. The fact is, before the nuclear bombs were droped, there was already a significant plan in place to invade Japan by US forces - Operation Downfall.
Japan was a determined and fanatical enemy that used suicide tactics, often charged well fortified lines when defeat was unavoidable, and killed themselves instead of surrender - unless we had used a toally new and devastating weapon to terrify the Japanese hogh command to call for surrender - we would have to invade much in the same way we had to invade the German homeland to end the war. You severely underestimate the guile and fatalism of a determined enemy... that and the fact that had withstood withering bombing before and remain firm. Hell, they built defenses, bunkers, and arifields in the side of cliffs all over the coastline before the bombs were dropper - hardly the mindset of a defeated enemy seeking peace.