In this other thread of mine (which interestingly enough of devoid of answers from some specific sides of the debate), Blalron made a comment I thought was interesting:
What do you all think? True? Important? (I ask this last because I’m not sure whether or not it’s moot, even if true; I have a feeling that the majority of “two bit dictators” are trying to get nukes ANYWAY.)
Thoughts, anyone?
What can they say?
Disarm Russia by giving each country in the world 3 nukes. Small countries will be real nice to everyone, Big countries won’t do things to piss off the whole world. Since everyone hates the U.S., we get to keep our several thousand 
In the last two issues of Harpers magazine, Jonathan Schell has written extended essays demonstrating how Bush’s doctrine of “pre-emptive war” (including “usable nukes”) encourages nuclear proliferation.
North Korea is solid evidence for the validity of this argument.
Hmmph. That’s right, back in 1994, North Korea knew that Al-Qaeda would attack the WTC and the Pentagon seven years later, and that 18 months after that the US would attack Iraq. So they built their first bomb then, to prevent the then-not-elected Bush II Administration from attacking them in 2003.
'Cause, you see, North Korea’s intelligence agencies are that good.
Sua
Perhaps lout was implying:
Dubya’s policy toward North Korea is solid evidence for the validity of this argument.
A year ago I would have said it was a bad idea for France to get nuclear weapons back in the days, but today I have to say that it was a good idea, or else France and the rest of Europe would have been entirely at the mercy of the USA and Russia during the cold war.
As much as I dislike nations inventing and stockpiling nuclear weapons, this selective starting of wars on nations without nuclear weapons really seems to be an incentive for everyone to get them. When the cold war ended, the fear of a nuclear war decreased. That all may change thanks to Bush’s clever foreign policy.
Suasponte, while North Korea didn’t know in advance, the current news do give validity to the argument, in hindsight.
Actually, horizontal proliferation - the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more nations - is nothing new. Experts have said that it is one of the greatest threats to international security for decades. Once nuclear weapons were possible it was certain that many nations would want them. Nations like, say, Pakistan: facing a larger neighbor with a significant territorial dispute.
North Korea is a perfect example of how Bush’s policy has little to nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. North Korea has both a plutonium and an enriched uranium bomb program, has for years. This is Bush’s fault? I think too much is made of Bush pointing out what a terrible regime exists in North Korea. The North Koreans say worse about the US all the time.
As for Kim Jong Il being “safe” because he has nuclear weapons. That remains to be seen.
Iraq is expected to go down easy. North Korea is presumed to be an extremely hard nut to crack. There’s the explanation.
I think the more relevant example is Iran, who seeing what is happening to Iraq is trying to arm themselves with a nucular (sic) weapon system
Is this considered a new thing, or has every dictator always tried to acquire the most weapons he could? As in Panzers and Luftwaffe?
Or should we publicly promise not to invade any country without nukes? Even if they invade Kuwait?
Regards,
Shodan
Say, that would be a great line of argument for North Korea. Because, really, everybody who’s anybody wants to invade Kuwait. 
I was originally going to start a new thread, but I’ll just bump this instead because it perfectly encapsulates what I wanted to discuss:
The recent war in Iran is the most blatant encouragement by the United States of “Hey, dictators and regimes, you really ought to get nukes” possible. The clear message shown by U.S. deference towards Russia and North Korea, who have nukes, and bombing of Syria, war in Iraq, war in Iran, war in Libya (most of these events happening after 2003, the last time this thread was bumped) is that nukes are the thing, and that once you have a clear and credible nuclear arsenal, Uncle Sam will leave you alone.
Conversely, the Russian invasion of Ukraine after Ukraine gave up nukes, also further convinces the world that nukes are an effective deterrent.
It’s this combination of 1) aggression against those without nukes, and 2) deference to those who do have nukes, that’s only going to encourage regimes to go nuclear. The clear lesson from Iran for regimes is, “Iran wasn’t wrong to pursue nukes, Iran’s only flaw was not getting the nukes in time before Uncle Sam bombed.”
Just an opinion:
Trump’s level of aggression is a real threat to world peace. He threatens places like Greenland and Panama. He is hostile to long time allies. He starts a war with Iran. Nations see that and realize that the United States is going to pulverize any other nation in a conventional war. We did it twice in Iraq and are doing it now to Iran. They may see that the only viable alternative in all of this is to have a nuclear deterrent. The idea being, “Try to bully/conquer us, and we’ll release nukes.”
I agree. The lesson every country has learned from this is “if you don’t have nukes, the US will ruin you.”
Spot on. Trump’s relationship with Kim Jong Un is a clear statement to everybody in the world that they need to get nukes as soon as possible. I wonder if Denmark heard it. Japan did. Mark my words, Iran will have a nuke within 5 years. Most likely 3.
All that said, there is a good reason to for every country to have nukes… ZOMBIES! 
Reminds me of an old thread I started {blinks} FOURTEEN YEARS AGO?
I don’t think it makes sense for any country to acquire nukes (I think the US should disarm), but I also think it’s perfectly logical for certain governments, especially dictatorships, for the reasons outlined in the OP, in Velocity’s bump, and elsewhere. There’s basically no downside and lots of upsides.
To paraphrase an old bumper sticker: If atom bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have atom bombs.
There are people I know who won’t leave the house without a semi auto handgun and would think it’s crazy to voluntarily disarm themselves. And yet most people go around unarmed all the time without it affecting their lives a single bit.
Likewise, non-nuclear countries aren’t exactly getting invaded left and right.
Thats because those unarmed people know that highly organized, armed police officers will respond if anyone assaults them. Take away the police and then those unarmed people will be in severe danger.
The ability to cause massive pain and suffering to an invader is a strong incentive against invasion. The more pain and suffering you can cause your invader, or allies of your invader, the less incentive they have to invade. Nations go to war because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Change the equation so the drawbacks outweigh the benefits and people’s decisions change.
Libya as mentioned is a good example. They gave up their nuclear weapons program and their government was overthrown with the help of the west. If Saddam had had nukes in 2003 he likely wouldn’t have been invaded. If Russia didn’t have nukes, then NATO would be far more aggressive in their assistance to Ukraine. There is a reason Israel tries so hard to stop nations like Syria, Iraq and Iran from developing nukes. Ukraine is looking into making rudimentary fission bombs to deter Russian aggression in the future.
However part of me wonders what makes nukes different. Chemical and biological weapons can cause severe problems too. So can artillery pointed at population centers (like the north korean artillery pointed as Seoul).
My understanding is centrifuge technology may get replaced with technology that uses lasers to separate U-235 from U-238. That will make obtaining fissile material cheaper and faster which will likely lead to more proliferation.
Unless nations have massive economic and political consequences for building nukes. But that doesn’t really stop rogue states, esp in the modern situation where the world isn’t a unipower anymore.