What if One Person Could Take Away the World's Nuclear Weapons?

 Let’s say you can just whip the nuclear weapons of the world out of the window. But before you decide, let’s think about it. What moral concerns will race through your mind if you did do it?

The destruction capacity of these weapons cannot be matched, posing an eternal threat to not just humanity, but the earth itself. Removing this monstrosity might seem like the type of question which you can answer without your senses. However, consider the delicate balance of power maintained by nuclear weapons. Countries like the USA, Russia, and North Korea, armed with vast arsenals, deter large-scale wars through mutually assured destruction. Yoinking these weapons could destabilize global peace, as nations might turn to conventional or even more insidious warfare, believing they can strike without nuclear retaliation.

Can One Sole Person Decide This?

The enormity of this decision begs the question: can one sole person wield such power responsibly? Deciding to eliminate all nuclear weapons isn't just a technical or political choice; it's a moral and ethical dilemma. One person, no matter how wise or well-informed, takes their own biases and selfish needs with them. The decision to disarm must consider global perspectives and future implications. Relying on a single individual to make this decision risks oversimplifying this extremely nuanced issue. 

If one person does decide it, what separates them from a dictator, a tyrant? Isn’t this the exact reason why democracy was created in the first place?

And let’s say we look at it from the other side. This person took a survey of the entire world population. 70% of them said yes to disarmament. But does the general population always know what’s best for them? In 1920, the United States government introduced the 18th Amendment to The Constitution, banning the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages. At the time, the general public was really pushing for it, thinking it would reduce crime, abuse, and fix the general order of the country. 13 years later, organized crime, smuggling of goods, and a general disregard for the law was monumentally high, forcing the public and the government to backtrack their words.
How is this any different? Maybe the public does want the threat of nuclear weapons gone, but have no clue what kind of power vacuum it will leave.