Quote Originally Posted by AdrianII
The development of such weaponry always has a profound effect on the society and political system of the country involved. That is because its possible use invites equally massive retaliation from the opposition, so crucial decisions are never left to single leaders or grey eminences.

It is a paradox: because the possession of nuclear arms invites possible massive retribution, it leads to more responsible behaviour. This is merely a rule of experience, not a physical law or a logical necessity.
A valid point for consideration. I suspect that you are correct. The USA has certainly been reluctant to use atomic/nuclear weaponry since observing the results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- despite finding ourselves in tactical situations where nuclear weapons would have been a tactically useful tool [notably against the massed "volunteer" Chinese forces that attacked UN forces in North Korea].

My concerns with the spread of nuclear weapons technology really aren't connected to the States that possess them (as you say, they have a valid fear of retribution to deter silliness), but to the degree of security that these weapons and materials have in various countries. An extra-national organization that came in possession of a poorly secured weapon would have little to deter them from using it [e.g. Just who would we nuke if a terrorist cell detonated a TNW in Tel Aviv. Even were the group supported by Hussein in Damascus, would Israel feel justified in wiping a largely innocent city out when the nation involved began denying culpability? The terrorists might get off a free shot.]

I know countries have a vested interest in securing their nuclear weapons better than anything else they have, but just how large will the nuclear club grow before someone slips up. Heavens, states of the former CCCP already have problems with this.


The USA and other nuclear powers may have no "legitimate" right to prevent the acquisition of same by another sovereign country -- but it is almost certainly in our interest to prevent it. Following the 9-11-01 attacks, it seems possible that any US administration would have a lot of incentive to err on the side of caution and security despite the cost to international relations and good will.