Yeah, people dont need guns, countries dont need nukes. The argument is easy
Except that if two people with guns disagree, they kill each other and not the entire world.
Yes, there’s definitely a difference in the scale of consequences. Of course, you could go the other way. There’s a difference in scale between allowing only knives in a country as opposed to assault rifles.
Many governments have demonstrated that it’s possible to provide a reasonable amount of security while also having strict gun control, because the governments have the monopoly over the use of force on their territory. Basically, they can bring a bigger gun to keep the order.
That fundamentally doesn’t work in global politics because there is no higher authority that can enforce nuclear weapon control or guarantee the security of a country that doesn’t have them. So having having the “biggest gun” yourself is really the only ironclad security guarantee a sovereign country can have.
Consider that many countries want to develop nuclear weapons. They are prevented by pressure (of various sorts) from the world’s dominant power. Thus, the world’s dominant power acts as the police force.
That kind of policing only works on countries that don’t have nuclear weapons, which is exactly what provides the incentive to develop them … for example if the current “police force” can’t really be trusted.
The point is, once a country has it’s own nuclear weapons, it’s basically “above the law”. That simply doesn’t work this way on a smaller scale. You privately own a main battle tank and still wouldn’t be above the law.
Good point. I still believe many of the arguments still apply. I’m not in any way saying the countries that want them should get them. On the contrary, I’d feel a whole lot better if they were abolished worldwide.
Um, no.