Sorry, I thought it was implied. What I meant was that since there are already nuclear weapons, I don’t care if everyone has them. To me, there’s no particular state that is extra deserving of a stockpile of weapons that kill masses of people.
If everyone has them then they’re less likely to be used. Back when the U.S. was the only country with WMD’s…they were used twice in the same war. Once the U.S.S.R. started making atomic and then hydrogen bombs, it was too scary for the US rulers to use them for fear of retaliation.
Nowadays, with only one superpower, I suppose it’s preferable that several nations have them…to prevent the U.S. from using them again.
So you’re equating USSR and Iran? Granted, Soviet Union was a kinda corrupted socialist country but don’t you think Marxism (even somewhat distorted to your or my taste) is a little bit different ideology than medieval islam? And does what you’ve said mean that if only USSR had nukes back in 40’s you’d advocate that capitalist countries must have them as well, so the “evil empire” couldn’t take over the “free world”?
Now about a probability of nuclear war.
First of all, it’s rather pointless to blame USA for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The only real blame you can put here is that US made nukes first. anybody who made them first would use them, be it Germany or Soviet Union. Even if Trotsky won over Stalin USSR would use them — the former showed himself as extremely ruthless man during putting down of peasant uprisings, you should know that. (Plus, it would be more likely under Trotsky USSR developed nukes before US, I think.)
Secondly, with all due respect, nuclear bombardment ended that war, not started it. Sure, killing hundreds of thousands of people instantly is a bad thing, but is killing them over a prolonged period of time using “conventional” weapons any better? Can you guarantee that if US didn’t use that nukes a number of victims of the prolonged war was actually less? And than let’s imagine what would happen if US (or Soviet Union) had nukes, say, in 1939? I guess, there would still be a couple of nuclear explosions (and may even purely demonstrative, killing nobody but several goats and cows) and no WW2 at all. 50 millions lives saved.
But let’s return to the current situation. The MAD concept of the Cold War was based on the equal nuclear capabilities of NATO and OVD large enough to actually destroy the adversary. That’s not even nearly true to the US-Iran confrontation. Nuclear Iran would indeed be able to do some very painful damage to US but honestly, it would be painful only to the people, not the ruling class. And than what? US retaliates. With all its true might. And that would be a very fast and very decisive victory. That voters would cheer up. While long and bloody “conventional” war with lots American casualties would be almost certainly despised by the public. So, you don’t have much regard toward this country’s government? Me neither. Ever heard about the case of burned Reichstag?
But even without such conspiracy theories, what would prevent nukes to be released to some extraterritorial terrorist groups when they (nukes) become widespread so one won’t be able to blame anybody particular?
And even if not and MAD concept would once again rule the world and several nuclear superpowers would assume a complete sovereignty over their respective territories, would hate each other to the extreme degree (suppressing this way internal class struggles, by the way), and would constantly fight numerous proxy wars over influence, dwindling natural resources and markets. Would that be a better world than unified empire?