PROPOSITION #4
right
left

Back to the US for a moment…

Most of us love our country for the values we presently claim and for the greatness we
hope to collectively pursue, a greatness only attained in its sharing. To the extent that
'we' is 'me' I am a bit afraid of my own refection. It is we who seem most comfortable
speaking of Nuclear Weapons as an option that cannot be eliminated.

If a great power is not good, it is by default evil, such is the nature of great life forces that
would otherwise parish in homeostatic mediocrity. If Nuclear Weapons embody evil, we
enter that sphere by merely suggesting a willingness to conceive circumstances in which
they might be used.

Fear employed as a tool to gain compliance never results in a lasting good. Fear being mostly a
response to nebulous external influences-generally only perceived to exist- is, at minimum, evidence
of a distorted perspective....
There are significant problems associated with this position. That which was formerly
differences deriving from the relative abundance of technology and resources now
becomes a chasm deeper and wider as a consequence to artificially inflated strength
by which there are no natural means to match in kind. Those vulnerable to extortion
by those 'who have' eventually adapt unorthodox approaches in misguided instinctual
efforts targeted to narrow the perceived boundless gap between profoundly disparate
'deterrence quotients'.
We would argue…

‘We came across something evil before we knew it was evil and now that we know it is evil we
know it is best for you that you not have it for we know that you too would suffer in both the
'knowing' and the 'having' just as we so suffer with the attendant responsibilities of both
'knowing' and 'having' in the present.

Those who 'have' will not volunteer to 'have not' and even among  adversaries who 'have' there
is agreement that there are no others who 'should'.  Nuclear Weapons function as an extension
of artificial strength and function to  expand real and imagined disparities  between those who
'have' and those who 'have not'. There will be nothing close to equality among humans, nor will
there ever be, meaningful tranquility until the day this chasm is somehow bridged...that is the
'Nuclear Guarantee'.

The hypocritical resolve to assure there are no others becoming those who
'have' is somehow pathologically reinforced by the mere presence of a desire of
‘have nots’ to also possess an evil weapon.  Surely ‘have nots’ are bewildered
by powerful nations seemingly oblivious to the hypocrisy of  beholding the
greatest of all ‘forbidden fruits’.  At some level in may be broadly conceded that
the desire for something evil is surely something evil but no greater evil then
actual possession.  

For those 'who have' in conflict with those who 'have not', the possession of Nuclear Weapons
allows for a greater degree of dominance by virtue of strength gained through artificial means… a
threat for which the implications associated with any hypothetical use would be the implied fault of
the nation 'without' somehow forcing a 'no option' scenario in which the nation 'with' became a
nation that 'had to'. There is an implied sense of moral superiority, presumed understood, and
hoped to be evidenced by, the restraint of not using without an 'extreme provocation' (as
exclusively defined by those who 'have').
While powerful nations fear 'rogue elements' having possession of Nuclear Weapons it is perhaps these same
'rogue elements' who may quite accurately perceive something 'critical' is missing relevant to being perceived as
legitimate.  That missing element is the relative ability to respond to real or perceived threats in proportionate
fashion. This is that which Nuclear Weapons are perceived to provide.
The vast majority of US citizens love this nation in a fashion similar to that I would claim for myself. In the event the
US deploys a nuclear weapon it is that moment we as citizens all become immigrants to a despicable foreign nation.
All past noble deeds and beliefs are instantly nullified to which a greater humanity would not have the time
remaining to eventually forgive.
Upon initial consideration this may seem a logical argument...
A conundrum without resolution?

If both those who 'have' and 'have not' 'should not'
but those 'who have' refuse to 'have not' and those
who 'have not' refuse to 'want not' we have surely
found a human problem seemingly without solution
have we not?

Maybe not... Perhaps the answers can be found
within the
'Nuclear Family'

nuclear weapons

artificial strength

In reality the appeal of such powerful weapons lies in the perceived function of deterrence as opposed to a primary consideration applicable to the desires of conquest and/or retribution.

The fewer number of nations
with  
Nuclear Weapons, the better.