[compee]

It would be worth mentioning that to develop nuclear weapons there would be a need to develop them, for something. If we could just step back for a moment and ask the simple question of "Why do we need nuclear weapons?" there is no good reason for anyone to have them.

[rdtsc]

Nuclear weapons are the key (if not _the_ key) bargaining chip when dealing between governments. There is a distinct and clear difference between the approach taken when dealing with nuclear countries and non-nuclear ones.

So one cannot deny that nuclear weapons are part of the "arms" definition of today. If you wield them and can convince others that you can and will use them (without privately actually intending to use them) you can get all kinds of concessions and a great leverage politically.

For anyone to be able to bully or threaten the US govt. they need to be a credible threat. That's why "arms" were allowed, militia with muskets where pretty darn dangerous back in the day because the government also didn't have anything else except muskets. 1000 displeased citizens were a really huge problem in that day. They wanted the government to never get comfortable, they wanted it to be easily overthrow-able and replaceable if needed.

That's the idea. Without satellites, drones, serious weapons semi automatic assault rifles and pistols are just kids toys and do nothing but let drunk family members shoot each other.

[compee]

You are stating all of this within the context that the governments should have nuclear weapons. The people (around the world) should have free and open nuclear power. Just because we have nuclear weapons does not mean we should have to use them in negotiations. Sure it helps to have power in any negotiating situation but why do we even get to a point? Isn't that akin to saying "We have power. You don't. Do what we want." This is not how government should be run.

Feel free to message me to continue discussion.

[lutusp]

> Just because we have nuclear weapons does not mean we should have to use them in negotiations.

This contradicts a bedrock diplomatic principle: one must pay attention, not to your opponent's stated intentions, but to his capabilities. Therefore if your opponent has nuclear weapons, it doesn't matter what he says he's going to do, it only matters what he is capable of with everything at his disposal.

Therefore, in negotiations, the existence of nuclear weapons becomes the elephant in the room, regardless of what's actually being discussed.

> Isn't that akin to saying "We have power. You don't. Do what we want." This is not how government should be run.

But that is how governments are run. One must pay attention to reality as well as ideals. Remember that politics is the art of the possible.