If every country was allowed to have nuclear weapons, and built their own in large amounts (hypothetically), can we assume that the world will actually be more "peaceful" than it is now?Posted by: PetersSmith
Definition of peace for this poll: the absence of war.
Yes; the reason for this actually relates to why we never had a nuclear war to begin with. If every country had nuclear weapons, then declaring war would result in MAD. Country leaders are rational enough to avoid war since it will only result in loss and not gain. More nuclear weapons would make the world safer, which solves the natural country desire for safety, with peace through deterrence and through the stability–instability paradox.
No; the reason for this is that it is the goal of every country to maintain security. In order to maintain security, a country must pursue power. If every country has nuclear weapons, then that compromises the ability to gain power and to have security. Thus, countries will make war in order to take away every other country's nuclear weapons. If everyone has nuclear weapons, no one does.
As long as the responsible world powers have more nukes than the unstable powers.
agree with the statement above
If every country had nuclear weapons, the world would be at equilibrium and then from that equilibrium nations would pursue even more dangerous weapons more vigorously in order to seize power. Such as anti-matter bombs, space rods/lasers, etc. And also, more powerful countries would likely resort to better defenses, thus MAD would be reduced, resulting in more risk to less well defended nations (as in shields and laser disarmament, etc.)
Hundreds of countries...one is bound to pull the trigger.