Every country should have nukes...

A weapons' historical usage is not an inherent argument as to its predicted usage.

Such a claim is a logical fallacy.

Why build the nuke weapons, if they are not going to use them?

In terms of logic, it leaves to be desired..

A nuclear deterrent is the phrase used to refer to a country's nuclear weapons arsenal, when considered in the context of deterrence theory.

Deterrence theory holds that nuclear weapons are intended to deter other states from attacking with their nuclear weapons, through the promise of retaliation and mutually assured destruction (MAD). It can also be assigned as a response to an attack by conventional forces; for example, the doctrine of massive retaliation threatened to launch US nuclear weapons in response to Soviet attacks.

In order for a nuclear deterrent to be successful, a country must preserve its second-strike capability. A nuclear deterrent is sometimes composed of a nuclear triad, as in the case of the nuclear weapons owned by the United States. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, have only sea-based nuclear weapons.

Chumly wrote:

A weapons' historical usage is not an inherent argument as to its predicted usage.

Such a claim is a logical fallacy.

From a man who cant see the value of the metric system and thinks that base 12 is easier.

Mine come from the refrigerator in a dozen.

More guns - less crimes.


Pure nonsense...

Chumly wrote:

Mine come from the refrigerator in a dozen.

Your chickens will live longer if you let them out of the fridge.

Well, I think we all agree by now that self-defense is a fundamental, universal, God given right. Countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and to the means to defend themselves, and other countries have no moral authority to grant the right only at their pleasure and under their control.

Nuclear weapons are the final bulwark against neighbouring countries, should they ever go out of control. If every country was in possession of nukes, it would make a lot of people safer. An invading country would then always be aware of what it is getting into.

Armed invasions, i.e. those in which the invading country knows it is invading a place with an nuclear armed defence force, are very rare - in fact, not a single one has ever happened. In contrast to that, armed invasions are the rule and not the exception in places like Africa or the Middle East, where the 'international community' has effectively disarmed countries and denied them the right to own nuclear weapons.

There are many places where there are lots of nuclear weapons, but effectively nothing in the way of wars - Britain, the United States, and France for instance.

There are places where there is a non-nuclear conflict rate far in excess of the nuclear armed countries' total (nuclear + non-nuclear) conflict rate.

And those countries that have huge nuclear arsenal didn't suddenly have a big spike in nuclear conflicts when their governments started placing nuclear missile silos everywhere.

It's therefore quite logical to argue that non-proliferation treaties only take nuclear weapons away from law abiding countries - the kind you really want on your side. Rogue countries will acquire nuclear weapons in any case, whether we sanction it or not. However, if you outlaw nuclear weapons, only lawless countries will have nukes.

Bottom line: every country should have nuclear weapons.

It tells the bad guys that more potential victims will have nukes for self defence. Everybody is safer - everybody wins.

More nuclear weapons - less wars.

Self-defense is certainly a fundamental, inherent right of all living beings, but just as we deny gun ownership to felons and the insane, nuke ownership may be denied to analogous rogue nations.

More nukes - less wars.

If nuclear weapons kill people, where are yours hiding all the bodies?