Hacker News Reader

For most normal countries that aren't engaged in a power struggle against the world order it is probably safest for them if no one else can have them.

The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction, so more actors are likely going to be more dangerous than the danger from the current holders.

View on HN

>>> For most normal countries That's quite a racist thing to say. There is no such thing as normal and abnormal countries! >>> aren't engaged in a power struggle against the world order The US has been engaged in several coups around the world, but you will of course conveniently ignore this and pretend these countries are struggling to defeat the US. >>> The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction Counter point. India and Pakistan have not engaged in war since them both becoming nuclear powers. The US and Russia unlikely to go to war because of the ir nuclear powers! If every country had them it's likely to make the world safer.

so why should "west" have them as opposed to someone else?

They are the current rulers and they have ruled it be this way.

No one is arguing "should".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com