Reply #6: This brings up a separate issue, though. [View All]

[Tamyrlin79]

So, we've decided that states, not individuals, have the right to bear nuclear arms. That means that if one sovereign state has the right to seek and build nuclear arms, so do all sovereign states. That includes Iraq, Iran, & North Korea. This right exists irrespective of who is in power at the time. Just because some nuclear powers are now governed by sensible people, it does not follow that they always will be. And, vice versa. Perhaps Kim Jong Il's successor will be a very pleasant, sane guy.

So, ending nuclear proliferation suggests preventing knowledge and know-how from getting into the hands of those who do not already possess it. But, if any one state claims the right to possess it, all of them have the same right and have the right to pursue that possession. And, it is clearly in their interests to do so, if they wish to maintain the balance of power and not become dominated by those who already have this technology.

Thus, the nuclear proliferation issue is one that must be ended in one of two ways: states must be allowed to pursue their own nuclear weapons under some international regime to keep the peace, or no regime can have any nuclear weapons. The former may seem difficult to achieve, but the latter, a complete ban and dismantlement, is more unrealistic. Even if only at token levels, the ability to build and create such weapons (and at least threaten their use) will likely be retained. It is probably unrealistic to think otherwise.