[jilebedev]

> Once a country has a nuclear bomb or two, there is not much other governments can do to stop it from making more, says Ilan Goldenberg, a former head of the Iran team at the Pentagon. Plenty of states want such capabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue

The unstated implication is that weapons and military power are for the US, and its allies. Others can't have any.

The brazen arrogance of that idea is probably among the chief reasons the US is so vehemently and passionately disliked throughout the world.

What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond the fact that it threatens US power?

[lsd5you]

You may not agree with it, but I don't think the disbelief is warranted. There may be other less pure motivations but there is a pretty simple moral case - proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war

- because more states have them. Increasing risk proportionately (?).

- because more unstable/nefarious states have them, which are more likely to use them. This is of course somewhat debateable, but nevertheless plenty of people believe this and they're not flatearthists.

Taking an entitlement point of view just seems to be missing the point. It does however explain why these other states want them and resent the US/the West.

[jilebedev]

> proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war

Again, the unstated implication is that the US has a moral right to shepherd the rest of the world to the correct moral conclusion to this situation. The rest of the world is just too damn ignorant to figure out how to not murder everyone with nukes, so the US has to have the hard job of controlling the nuclear stockpiles of the world. It's tough having that moral high ground, but someone's got to do it.

The US has committed crimes of war with nuclear weapons against civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...

The fact of the matter is that knowledge cannot be suppressed. The ability to create and operate nuclear weapons is not something that is going to be a controlled secrete for very long - if it is at all. The current policy of the US asserting its power over the rest of the world is only going to ensure that when this knowledge is common, it will most certainly be used to ensure the end of the US power.

[bardworx]

There are a few issues with your assumption that, and this is coming from an immigrant of former USSR. 1. It's not the nation-states that posses nuclear weapons that are the most dangerous, it is a possibility of an extremist group getting nuclear weapons. Countries has something to fear, a small criminal/terrorist organization does not.

2. US and Russia has similar nuclear stockpiles, how come economic distribution is different between the two? Nuclear weapons does not make you a "super-power", economy does. Example: Germany has no nuclear weapons yet are an economic power.

[AnimalMuppet]

It occurs to me that there are (crude) parallels between guns and atomic weapons. It seems inconsistent to be in favor of gun control (because too many people are proving to be irresponsible with them), but against nuclear weapons control (because surely those people will be responsible, right?)

[dantheman]

One of the key elements of the NPT is that eventually Nuclear Weapon States will disarm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

[emiliobumachar]

Eventually, but they never commit to a date. "Forever minus one day"?

[sanxiyn]

What is wrong with acquiring nuclear weapons is that it increases the threat of nuclear war which nobody wants. This applies to both US and non-US states. Non-US states acquiring nuclear weapons is as bad as US acquiring new nuclear weapons.

[Steko]

Hmm, China and Russia are not what most people would consider US allies and Russia has roughly the same number as the US (~46% of world's stockpile) and the US has opposed proliferation to other allies I would question your reasoning to the 'unstated implication'.

[nikdaheratik]

It isn't brazen arrogance. Limiting the number of countries that have nuclear weapons is a clear (though not explicitly stated) foreign policy goal. The U.S. wants to preserve the current balance of power, and prevent big wars that could disrupt its interests in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Keeping one state from getting nukes and forcing other neighboring states to do the same, or raising tensions like has happened between India and Pakistan fits right into that goal. So does stationing troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, and keeping a fleet ready in the Middle East. And it's not really about ultimatums, as much as using every tool it can to change the cost/benefit analysis of nukes to keep most countries from going for them. No one wants to be the next North Korea, and that's one big reason why the embargo against Iran helped to bring them to the negotiating table.

The U.S. policy on Israel has probably done more to irritate other states than the nuclear policy as alot of states hate Israel, but most don't care as much about getting nuclear weapons. Japan and a number of other big countries could get them if they wanted. OTOH, a number of countries "hate" the U.S. but wouldn't want to take over the cost of playing policeman all the time, and overall like the stability policy brings.

[xamolxix]

> What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond the fact that it threatens US power?

Increases the risk of nuclear war?

[arethuza]

I thought nuclear weapons were supposed to deter wars?