Same with bombs, missiles, artillery, and large caliber weapons like those on tanks.
The weapon’s existence in possession constitutes a threat. That is the property conflict.
So is owning a gun or a knife.
A gun can be used perfectly for self-defense purposes. An atomic weapon cannot be used for defensive purposes in a state-less society.
I have no idea what you think of as “defensive purposes” then, because I could definitely threaten an aggressor to launch my nuke at him if he tried to hurt me. As a side note, I don’t think anyone in a free society would ever own a nuclear weapon. Individuals can get their hands on them today if they wanted to, but guess what, they don’t.
Atomic bomb damage cannot be limited to a specific justifiable target. Let’s not get into continuum fallacies.
Without committing aggressive murder of innocents?
Where does the funding come from to build nuclear weapons? If it were a stateless-society, who would invest money into the production of a nuclear weapon? It obviously wouldn’t be the average citizen. Would it be economical for an individual or more likely a company to obtain a nuclear weapon for whatever benefit? Even though they exist, an individual obtaining a nuclear weapon seems highly unlikely. If anything some sort of group would have to obtain it.
This is just stupid. Read Block’s article.
Same with missiles or any bomb or artillery.
The damage could be limited by not deploying said bomb.
Same thing with any bomb, missile, or artillery or tank.
The folk with the best nuclear weapons policy on earth are the brits: they keep the minimal number of SSBNs to maintain at all times a 24/7 nuclear force on the sea with 300 nukes, just enough to destroy every county on earth which might attack. As far as I’m concerned the brits could very easily disband the whole army and kekp only those 4 subs. So, every move towards a more ‘british’ policy is good. Obama’s treaty is good, as the US has far, far too many nukes, but unilateral disarmament down the british level (but not below, as only folk which want a new total war can possibly want) would have been preferable. Here state interest coincides with the general interest. As for ‘crazy people’ getting nuke, I look very hopefully forward to the day when nukes shall cost a million bucks apiece, as that alone would practically end all military conflict on earth and the world would revert back to thousands of microstates. A blessing for humankind. So let us hope that Iran actually produces nukes setting of a nuclear armament race in the region, and possibly further. Here state interest is clearly agianst the general interest.
There’s no convincing anyone that you possess a nuclear weapon for household decoration only.
I agree. But are we talking about right and wrong here, or just popular opinion?
Popular opinion about what?
About another persons reasons for owning a bomb.
Can you answer the question. I don’t like this flip-flopping business.
If it is opinion that the only plausible reason for owning a nuclear bomb is criminal, it is opinion that a man lunging at your throat with a knife has only one plausible intent: criminal. You could suppose, if it suits your interest, that he is just practicing and will stop just before he reaches your throat. I prefer common sense when dealing with my own safety. Right and wrong may be theoretically clear cut. However, theory does not judge real situations.
A man owning a knife or a nuke isn’t criminal.
A man “lunging at you” with a knife or a nuke is criminal.