At what point should weapons testing stop?

[AB Asks]

Russia has reportedly tested the world's biggest ever non-nuclear bomb. The so-called 'father of all bombs' destroys all human life within three miles of its impact and causes deafness on people up to four miles away. It contains the equivalent of 11 tons of TNT and eclipses the Americans biggest bomb, the 'mother of all bombs'. Is such weapons testing acceptable? Is there a point where countries have to agree to draw the line with weapons?

[andy-hughes]

Of course there is - but it won;t happen.

Why? because to be in a position where you could effect such a change, you have to have proved that you agree with things as they are.

The military in any country are a powerful force. It is their interests to make sure that potential war situations continue to occur, otherwise they are out of a job.

Simple, but sadly, true.

[kwicky]

At least we won't die of radiation poisoning. And they are legal! If these type of weapons replace the nuclear weapons maybe we can all sleep soundly in our beds. I can remember the fallout from Chernobyl when the wind blew in our direction and infected the northern part of England. I wonder if these new bombs can be put in warheads of long range rockets?

[Lonnie]

Due to the nature of Humankind, it'll never happen, man will always covet and want what another has, also, we tend to have long memories about misdeeds done to us, (history).

I may be a bit of a pessimist on this subject, but man won;t stop testing and using weapons until he's destroyed the planet.

[ludwig]

I think once you've exploded a bomb it's pretty clear that it works, and no further testing is necessary.