These arguments about the US deciding which countries should be allowed the privilege of having nuclear weapons sound, to me, a lot like arguments about the US government deciding which people should be allowed the privilege of owning handguns.
What do you think about that comparison, Loren?
Each additional country that obtains nuclear weapons goes one step further in undermining nuclear non-proliferation efforts. The US and the world community has "decided" that no additional countries should be able to obtain them. The alternative is that everyone gets them (there are about 30 non-nuclear states that could obtain them quickly should they decide to focus their efforts). If you are concerned about such weapons being used in a conflict or getting into terrorist hands, then you should support the non-proliferation efforts.
That does appear to be the argument against handguns, except with individuals rather than countries.
Can I just check that when people say the US supports 'freedom', they don't really mean 'for other people'?
Do you think nothing should be done to to prevent the reversal of this trend?
Yes, I do. I just wish the US did, or that you did. What's needed is a clear acknowledgement of what the situation is. Some countries have nukes. They don't want other countries getting them, for the reasons you described. In asking other countries to do you the favour of not developing weapon you already have, there are some things that are helpful, such as supporting their defence in other ways, helping them economically, and acknowledging their strategic interests, even when they are rivals to your own. What is not helpful is invading them, supplying nukes to your friends in violation of the rules, refusing to limit the testing or development of nuclear weapons, encouraging others to attack them with chemical weapons, threatening to bomb them, aggressive espionage and cyber warfare attacks, and in general refusing to acknowledge that you're actually asking them to do something they are under no obligation whatsoever to give you.
The easiest way to spread nuclear weapons around the world is to aggressively threaten everyone who doesn't have them.
And that's the principal problem. I don't really see that Auxlus, and the US, actually believe in nuclear non-proliferation. They believe in rightness of maintaining US military dominance over countries they dislike. In the context of Iran, they sound sort of similar, since they both involve taking steps to ensure Iran doesn't develop nukes. But the conflict between the two positions is that, ultimately, one involves securing the active cooperation of Iran, while the other involves denying it sovereign rights as an independent entity.
So which is it? Are we concerned about nukes spreading in general, or is this about maintaining power over countries we dislike?
