So?
Its a perfectly rational course of action, no nuclear armed nation has ever been invaded and subjugated.
If i ran a country building or acquiring a nuke would be top of my "To-do" list.
Its a perfectly rational course of action, no nuclear armed nation has ever been invaded and subjugated.
If i ran a country building or acquiring a nuke would be top of my "To-do" list.
It's zealotry all the way down, whether you explicitly name your god or not. The only irrational thing here is to claim moral superiority based off something as superficial as a particular religion.
Will China/Russia/USA give up theirs or do they see them as essential for "national security"?
And if they are essential then what moral authority do they have to deny security to others?
moral authority is only a talking point; a feint veil over the actual truth. Which is that the nuclear powers do not want more nuclear powers, lest those that aren't allies strong arm using nuclear blackmail (against, let's say, the USA's interests).
And tbh, i think ignoring moral authority, or "justice" or "peace", and talking about the truth, makes more sense.
Logic dictates we disarm them first and see how the rest plays out =)
God works in mysterious ways?
That's the thing with non-proliferation that doesn't really sit right with me, it kind of goes against human knowledge and progress. You have to have a smaller group of people ban certain kinds of knowledge from the rest of humans, and be demonstrably willing to use violence to enforce that, otherwise anyone with enough determination will eventually figure it out. Even when there was somewhat of a consensus on how to deal with that during the Cold War, a bunch of countries slipped through the non-proliferation but everyone pretended like it's ok. Now that there is less consensus on anything in this world, how will this system work going forward?