Abolishing nuclear weapons: pros and cons

Here are some links for the pro argument of abolishing nuclear weapons:
http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles6/Krieger_Abolish-Nukes.htm

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22297

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=784&issue_id=2


and the con argument:
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LSdSK1fRlMYLFxG1hm3BfLymX7Y1Hq5vpXph38DZwYZGN7Jgp8Vc!-1392827226!-755419558?docId=5000520540

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=54


This particularly stuck out to me:
"Interestingly, he turns one potentially pro-nuclear argument around: Some proponents of nuclear weaponry say it is futile to rid of them, since people will always be able to create them, now that the technology is known. But Schell says this is a reason not to worry that some rogue nation with the only nukes in the world can hold the planet hostage—the larger powers could always create nukes if they needed to for deterrence, and the threat of doing so and retaliating is an effective sort of deterrence in itself."

A couple of my questions for a con position-
*If world powers were to keep their nuclear arms, under what circumstances would they use them, or are they merely for show?
*What countries would and wouldn't be allowed to keep nuclear arms? Who's the boss and why?

This is sort of related. I found this news story last week. I find it rather disturbing that such a powerful and dangerous substance could go unregulated to such a degree. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8379956.stm