Is the nuclear weapon taboo? The nuclear weapon is useless and expensive. Let us not leave the nuclear weapon as an inheritance

Starting with the definition of the word taboo as stated in a dictionary (a topic it would be unbecoming to evoke, under social and moral proprieties), the author of the first article discusses the status of the nuclear weapon, outlining that it is expensive, useless and monstrous. She notices that conventions on chemical weapons seem to be more efficient than the NPT, that, even if the reasons for abolition are known as well as ways to reach it, it seems difficult to actually address this issue. She evokes different voices coming from different countries or international bodies calling for this abolition. She also states that the nuclear weapon is not a deterrent weapon but a weapon of domination, and calls for the mobilisation of the civil society throughout the world. A second article states that the nuclear weapon is useless and expensive, and that we have to get rid of this hazard for the sake of the planet. Former ministers, Prime ministers, and generals consider that we can and must give up nuclear weapons, notably because the strategic context has completely changed since the fall of the Berlin wall, and support the action of Global Zero