The Bottom Line...

It seems that there will be no peace in the world until we are able to settle the nuclear weapons controversies currently upsetting the planetary population. The fact is that we humans are violent and vicious creatures and we need to acknowledge that characteristic as the first step in solving this nuclear threat problem. There are basically 3 ways to look at this issue. The first way is from the anti-war, peace will overcome, can't we all get along crowd. These people live in a fantasy world were all of our big problems and conflicts can be settled by just talking with one another. The fact that this method has never worked since the dawn of time does not stop them from trying. The next group supports the status-quo. The existing nuclear powers can be considered basically trustworthy since no one has ever used their nuclear arsenal since WW2. The US and Soviet Union were able to muddle through 35 years of cold war without pulling out their nukes. Instead the major powers in the world have had to settle with using small country proxies and limited warfare (ie. no nukes) to spread their influence in the world. The existing nuclear powers have displayed a level of trust where no one even suggests that the US or Russia or even China would launch a nuclear strike. The whole MADD scenario practically guarantees this. The last group in this sad saga is the small , mainly middle-eastern countries who have never shown they can be trusted with any weapon more dangerous than a pocket knife. These countries control their populations using brutality, propaganda, and by demonizing of the outside world (ie. non-muslim) for causing all of their problems. The leaders of these countries have never displayed any scruples or limits when it has come to attacking their opponents. I'm not so sure that the MADD strategy would prevent any of these countries from launching or providing the means for a non-state actor to launch a nuclear attack. That is the main worry I have about the spread of nuclear capabilities. The more nuclear weapons floating around increases the chance of a non-state actor getting their hands on one. Does anyone really think Al-Quiada or any other terrorist group would hesitate a single minute from using a nuclear weapon? Of course we could probably determine whose stockpile the weapon came from after the fact but then what would we do? Strike back at the country who let their weapons fall into terrorist hands? I don't see this happening in the political correctness dungeon we have placed ourselves in. Non-state actors end up becoming just another weapon for the despots in the world and it is this scenario that troubles me when talking about nuclear weapons proliferation.

*Warning - Reading this might be hazerdous to your health*
The only country I believe really needs a nuclear weapon today is Israel. They have been under attack for 60 years and so far their conventional forces have been able to do the job but the enemies of Israel have not giving up. However, I believe their enemies understand if Israel was attacked and it looked like defeat, and defeat would mean Israel would no longer exist, they would have no problems with turning Tehran, Mecca, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon into glass craters without a second thought and they would be right in doing so.