Obamas gotten a lot of press for his nuclear treaty thing… basically my interpretation is that “crazy countries” end up with fewer nukes. But its okay for us to have nukes.
Anyway, it seems like a good thing that there are fewer nukes in the world, especially if folks who might use them on us can’t get them.
Is this an instance where the interest of the state intersects with the general interest?
State interest, incentives and paranoia created enough of these weapons to end the world as we know it many times over. The fact that this didn’t happen yet shows us how incredibly lucky we are, not how incredibly safe we are.
So you would support Obama’s efforts to disarm? 
I agree with what Rothbard says concerning weapons of mass destruction in his essay War, Peace and the State. He takes the position that the possession of nuclear weapons is a criminal act because unlike a rifle it is impossible to limit the effects of a nuclear bombs to criminal entities. Since one does not have the right to aggress upon third parties in their pursuit of justice this type of weapon has no place in a libertarian society.
Even though Mr. Obama’s nuclear disarrangement policy appear to have sinister motives I can support any effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that exist today.
Sounds like a political scheme to get their enemies where they want them. If they are really serious about disarming we’d start if off first and now.
I recall hearing Mr. Obama saying that the United States would be willing to “provide safe storage” for enriched uranium that certain states have agreed to get rid of. This sounds very suspicious to me and leads me to believe that you are exactly right in saying that the United States is only looking after their own political interests. Even though this is most likely true I feel a small victory is won each and every time a nuclear bomb is destroyed.
I don’t know anything about these treaties but when they don’t implement something so simple to increase everybody’s safety which is to decriminalize a bunch of harmless drugs, then I don’t doubt for one second that whatever Obama is saying is all talk.
Strawman. That isn’t his position. I suggest you carefully re-read the said passage.
excert from Rothbard’s War, Peace and the State:
It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.4 But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even “conventional” aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.
This is why the old cliché no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modem world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, so mass murder – indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself – is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important, in truth, than the demunicipalization of garbage disposal, as worthwhile as that may be. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price control or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?
Am I missing something?
This seems familiar… [;)]
Don’t worry, lots of people have made the same mistake.
Just “use of”, “or threat of”… NOT ownership. And as such, it is consistent with every single other thing he’s ever written on the subject of self defense, non aggression & property rights. [:)]
Thank you for the explanation but I’m still confused over the portion of the essay:
For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the moden world.
Conza,
That Rothbard says their use must be immoral, then that wouldn’t necessarily include it’s possession. But he then goes on to state it’s possession must be immoral.
So I don’t think your position regarding Rothbard holds.
PS This is independent of my views on these weapons.
Ok, what exactly is the confusion? You can condemn something, but that doesn’t mean it should be outlawed [possession]… which he is clearly not making the case for. Considering he openly notes the exception, where its use could be justified. [everyone a criminal (i.e murder)] But obviously it can never be justified in these instances with the state around, considering the state is funded by theft. And really - the only reason the weapon exists at all. If the threat of use of it happens at all [against the innocent], then naturally it is a sin, a crime against humanity, mass murder etc.. of indiscriminate killing. Nagasaki, Hiroshima..
Nay. There is a possible exception, as he notes.
Huh? Where?
It does. Simply replace the nuclear weapon, with a cluster bomb or whatever else, a grenade launcher.
I am going by Walter Block’s here and not by what Rothbard said. The mere possession of nuclear bombs constitutes a threat in and of itself.
There’s no convincing anyone that you possess a nuclear weapon for household decoration only.
I keep my warheads in a stained wood case with 1/2" thick glass panels for easy visibility to the prestige collection of potential destruction. For safety, I always keep it locked.
And who would you need to convince? Where is the property conflict? …
In a stateless society the property conflict is with literally everyone.
Where is the the conflict if the weapon isn’t used?
Everywhere by the fact that the item is a huge investment with no alternative use.