Just because I am against any sort of violation of the right to own and to carry weapons, it doesn’t mean I think everyone should have nukes. I’m opposed to anyone owning nuclear weapons– especially governments. (But I’m also opposed to government employees possessing any sort of weapon while on the “job”. They have proven they can never be trusted.)
I can’t figure out how anyone could ever use nukes (on Earth, anyway) strictly defensively without damaging the life, liberty, or property of innocents (“collateral damage”). If you can’t do something without archating, then it can’t be a right.
Yes, I realize possessing nuclear weapons isn’t the same as using them. Is not possessing nukes a credible threat to use them, which necessarily means archating? If not, then I’m wrong.
Being against the possession of nuclear weapons doesn’t mean I want governments banning them from private hands. That’s worse than letting the fox guard the henhouse. Much worse. Government doesn’t have the right, nor does it have the imaginary quality called “authority“, to forbid others from owning anything, including nuclear weapons.
So where does this leave us? We have a right to possess nukes and a right to use them in self defense, but you would prefer that they remain in their silos, whether owned publicly or privately? Well… me too. But that’s not why citizens would possess them. They would possess them for means of self defense. Ideally they would provide a sufficient deterrent, and never have to be employed. But having a weapon that you will not use is like having no weapon at all. Nukes are effective as a deterrent only if the other side believes they will… Read more »