I see one hole in your theory, this only works with mutual destruction! If lets say either side doesn’t care if they die your screwed.
Give me an example of one 20th century leader who would fit the bill.
I could see some use of WMDs (including nuclear) in a free society as a means of defense against foreign invasion.
To which I would respond, you are correct human beings should not own nuclear weapons, so take away the nuclear weapons and submarines of the state. 
And the retort might sound something like “Laws don’t stop theft and murder either, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be illegal”.
I’ve seen many posts in this thread that say something to the effect of “it’s too hard to get/make a WMD”. The reason I hadn’t followed up on these is because If history is any indication, there will be new WMDs made, and it’ll get cheaper and easier to make existing ones. My point isn’t to discuss how practical it is to get a WMD, because this might only be relevant to our own time. Instead, I asked “should an individual be able to possess a WMD?”, since this question will be relevant until the day they are obsolete.
I like that point of view, but the argument against that would be this: Assuming you have one free state unwilling to own them, and other’s seeking empire willing to possess nukes and subs, the free state will be dominated.
I don’t know if you’re simply pointing out how things should be, but if so, what would you suggest in the meantime?
And my rebuttal would be that the purpose of law is not to control behavior, but to resolve disputes. Since murder and theft involve victims, they should be illegal, since there is a dispute. Owning a WMD does not involve a victim, as such there is no dispute, and so it should not be illegal.
No, no individual - even if he calls himself a state - has the right to own nukes or similar, for the simple reason that there is no way to justify such a right, according to libertarian principles. It should be as illegal as killing innocent people, taxation and murder.
The reason is simple; it´s not reasonable to own a nuke; just as it´s shouldn´t be legal to have the ´right´to point at someone with a gun while saying the words ´Your money or your life´. Just as in both cases there is no actual agression against ´property rights´, it is a violation of rights. Libertarianism is a philosophy of reason - e.g. argumentation ethics, rothbards theory of rights in the ethics of liberty, etc. - not a game in which the most radical person can make his point.
The moment someone can justify the reasonableness of nukes - thus the reasonableness of them being able to be used without a heavy threat towards innocent people - then I would consider them justified. Untill them; they ought to be illegal.
That definition really does not cut it, for it serves no guideline in what should be used to guide disputes. People could have a dispute on the colour of your t-shirt; therefore we need a philosophy of right to solve these disputes.
Well, of course, the only reason there is a dispute is if a right has been violated.
I agree cause I only see nukes as a scientific threat to innocent people. The only reason I could see a nuke as not a threat is if it was for shooting into space. maybe… maybe not. Even their fall-out can harm innocents far away if detonated on earth and not far enough into the sky. Pacific islands are harmful to innocent people if they would happen to come close to them due to nuclear testing that happens decades ago. I would state this is similar to leaving mines in a field, especially after a war is over, but during a war it gets nitty-gritty, meaning, it depends. I thought this Walter Block article was good. I’m sure this debate will go on for the time being though, no doubt.
You think making it illegal to own WMDs will stop people from owning them?
All of those involve victims. Owning a WMD does not. So no, it should not be illegal.
The reason that people should be able to own a nuke is just as simple, it is reasonable.
Again, you compare one act that has a victim to one that does not. Yes, extortion should be illegal. Whether one is threatening with a gun or WMD is irrelevant.
The one is aggression, the other is not.
Nope, no rights are violated if someone owns a WMD, just like no rights are violated if someone owns a gun.
You seem to be the one without reason here.
Then how do you justify any weapon? You think innocent people cannot be killed by a gun or knife or metal ball?
How about you put your reasoning cap on instead.
So you think laws stop criminals? Or do they just stop law abiding citizens?
i edited my post… what do you think?
It still seems to me that you think they should be illegal. To which I still ask do you think laws will stop criminals from getting their greedy little hands on them?
Don’t get me wrong, I think WMD’s, if used, are awful. But that does not change the fact that they exist. It also does not change the fact that no two nations that have nuclear weapons have gone to war so far. I myself think they are the greatest invention of all time and hope that every nation on earth, sooner rather than later, gets them.
I think the space issue debunked my initial case. So it’s now difficult to say if nukes are illegal or not. Geography is the determining factor for me. If a nuke goes off on earth or near earth, then it will kill innocents. Therefore in that instance it is always a threat, it is always a loaded gun in everybody’s face. But if it goes off in space far enough away from earth, then it’s possible no innocents will die. A gun in the face of a person is the same as a nuclear weapon only to be used on earth. Both threats and both do not need to be waited upon ignition for prosecution to happen.
the robber using his or her weapon doesn’t have to fire it to get your money either…
well, I can’t necessarily see how they can be made absolutely illegal, thus, I don’t see a natural law here against them. If something else would happen to come along, a better argument, just like for anything, my knowledge might change and thus the situation might change, but for now I agree with you.
So you can argue like a Rothbardian; but can you add a new argument? Because the whole ´you are not really attacking, thus therefore you should be able to have it´ is the point I was attacking. You obviously found it not to your satisfaction; granted. Repeating stuff and adding a few insults doesn´t really do the trick.
The Walter Block article changed my mind on the case, indeed. The pure having of a nuclear weapon is, in my eyes, no different from pointing a gun at someone´s head 24/7, even if you are not really saying anything to would be considered a threat.
doesn’t space detract from a geographical argument though?