Reply #15: Now there's a theory!.................

[speakclearly]

If the police have hancuffs, riot batons, and shotguns (not to mention pistols) why shouldn't we all? If they can wear bullet-proof vests, we should all be able to buy them! If the Army has tanks, why can't I? We should all be equal!

Except that is not the way it works! Do you want Mugabe to have nuclear weapons in Zimbabwe? Or how about Somalia. Or Sudan (that would solve Darfurfor sure!).

The reason is that a few nations developed nuclear weapons. They were very large nations. As the threat of nuclear proliferation raised its head. the Un met and developed a treaty to stop proliferation. Most nations on earth signed up to the treaty. It was believed that because the nations which had nuclear weapons where A) trustworthy, and B) philosophically opposed to each other, that a "balance' had been reached that would prevent any one nation or group of nations from dominating or enslaving the rest of the world. In order to protect all nations, it was believed (and is still believed by most world leaders and ethicists) it was better that other nations use their resources for internal developmetn rather than every nation spending large captial investments on developing nuclear weapons which they might then be tempted to use on political enemies or rival nations.

Imagine the outcome if Chad had nuclear weapons during the conflict between Hutus and Tutsis? Or if Cambodia had them and Pol Pot reigned supreme. Would El Salvador have used them against their insurgency? Would Argentina have used them during the conflict over the Falklands? Someday we may reach a period when all nations will give up nuclear weapons. We have not reached that point yet. Yet we do have a "balance" where nations who do have the technology are reluctant to use them. If Iran had nukes, would they be tempted to fulfil their prophecy of "wiping Israel off the map"? And if all nations had such weapons, would they exercise restraint if they thought a surgical strike was the only alternative that could be used to defend themselves? Would Lebanon hit Syria after they assassinated one of their senior political leaders? Would Serbia have hit Bosnia? Would Turkey use it against the Kurds in Iraq?