[stonepresto]

The fewer theocratic dictatorships with nukes the better. Its not that "Iran" as a construct having nukes is bad, its that the decisions to launch them lie with a few religious zealots who are known to not make good moral or ethical decisions.

[unmole]

> "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

[twelve40]

Well now this is also a practical problem. At this point, you'd have to unseat this "theocratic dictatorship" and possibly kill N thousand people in the process, otherwise they will inevitably get the nukes.

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?

[beepbooptheory]

Do you honestly think, say, the United States is any better equipped to make "good" decisions? Kinda hard to make that case with nukes specifically at least...

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.

[InCityDreams]

>The fewer theocratic dictatorships with nukes the better....the decisions to launch them lie with a few religious zealots who are known to not make good moral or ethical decisions.

God works in mysterious ways?

[swarnie]

IMO everyone has nukes or no one does.

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?

[chii]

> moral authority

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.

[matthewdgreen]

If everyone has nukes, the probability of a nuclear exchange goes towards 1. The probability of nukes landing on your city goes towards 1. We survived the last seventy-five years due to a relentless geopolitical exercise in limiting the proliferation of these weapons, often at great (moral and concrete cost.) We won’t survive an environment where every single tin-pot dictator has thermonuclear weapons mounted on ICBMs.

[swarnie]

Nukes have only been used by one country.

Logic dictates we disarm them first and see how the rest plays out =)

[Silverback_VII]

Are the atheistic western elites any better? WW3 seems to be kind of a possibility now. Pushing Russia into a corner was not a smart move. Especially for Germany.