Eliminate all nuclear weapons

Any nuclear weapon anywhere is a potential terrorist bomb. There have been cocnerned for over 15 years about the security fo nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Now, however, those concerns are more wide-spread. Unrest in Pakistan and uncertainties in China have raised the alarm about the security and instability in other countries. The recent news that 6 nuclear weapons took a joy ride on a B-52 without the knowlegde or permission of base commanders or proper authorities reminded people that security in the United States is also far from perfect.

We know terrorist groups have stated their desire to acquire nuclear weapons. If security over the weapons we have is imperfect, and we know sub-national groups are trying to acquire them, then to protect ourselves, the best way to proceed is to eliminate all nuclear weapons ro ensure they never fall into the wrong hands.hands. 
 
If the nukes have terrorist bomb potentiality, then the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the fact that nukes have heavy destruction at high blast overpressure and threanten the health and life of people. People there now are still exposed to the radiation, let alone the people then. The evarge leukemia rates and other radiation-ralated desease rates are much highter then those in other earas. The bombing in Ngasaki is in certan respects the fitter symbol of the nuclear danger that still hangs over us. Once nuke is used, nobody can ganrantee that no way it will be again. So, for the sake of the health and quality life of the people, we should eliminate all nuclear weapons.

Any nuclear weapon is a potential terrorist bomb, yes potentially it is, in fact any weapon isa potential terrorist weapon however most of them are much easier to use.
If a terrorist does manage to get their hands on a nuclear warhead, a high yield ballistic misslie warhead, for example where are these non-state actors going to then construct their ICBM launch site?
If the security of the weapons is light then perhapsit is with ease that a terrorist may get a hold of the weapon, but building a placeto launch it is not so easy to do without the support of the state they're building it in. Remeber the Cuban Missile Crisis? Aerial photos of the construction just because the Cold War is over does not mean similar measues are still not being taken.
But perhaps the terrorists are just using a tactical nuke or want to simply detonate their device in-situ. The bomb then has to travel, completely undetected, accompanied by rather anxious, possibly know terrorists, accross multiple borders, arrive at the destination and then finally be detonated.
It seems quite a big ask either way and thats without mentioning the appropriate skills and funding required that would rule out the majority of would-be city destroyers.

Furthermore, eliminating weaponry does not eliminate the existence of nuclear material in reactors and waste dumps. This material itself is potentially very dangerous were it to fall into the wrong hands - a so-called "dirty bomb" would cause mass panic at the very least, and there have been indications that terrorists have been trying to construct one for some time. It is surely better to keep nuclear material under high security in secret military bases than large, insecure waste dumps.