Nuclear prohibition has failed

[exploited]

[Martin Luther King]

This is dead wrong. Nuclear prohibition is probably the most successful international prohibition outside of maybe genoicde. It's remarkable the number of nuclear states is still near the single digits. Aside from a handful of failed states in Africa, every nation has the capability to create a nuclear arsenal if they put their mind to it.

[exploited]

[gla22]

Only 9 states have nuclear weapons. Compare that to the states that have nuclear power, which is significantly higher despite a relatively similar timeline of technological development.

Your point is also just wrong. States don't want nuclear weapons because the costs of procuring them are to high. Look at Iran. Why would a state like holland, which could easily build nukes, risk embargo and international sanction and condemnation for a weapon they probably won't use? But take away the international prohibition against it, and now the question becomes why would a country like holland NOT build nukes? The cost isn't prohibitive, and it's the most effective military deterrent on earth. Every country would build an arsenal just in case. States like South Korea and Saudi WANT nukes, they just aren't willing to piss off the USA in order to start a program.

The embargo on building nukes raises the cost of a nuclear program. It's why only desperate states attempt to get nukes now. Remove the embargo and there is no real cost to developing nukes, and so many many more countries would do it.

[Sparse1]

[The Comrade]

i much prefer iran's version of islam and government to the saudis. destabilizing it may be, but the islamic world will be better off in the long run getting out from under the saudis influence.

[exploited]

[exploited]

[Martin Luther King]

[exploited]

Weapon sharing does give the Dutch people the exact same benefits as developing the weapons themselves. "Dear NATO, Russia just nuked us, should we maybe nuke them back?" In fact, that was the very point of the weapons sharing program to begin with.

From Wikipedia:

"In case of risk of war the NPT treaty would cease, the sharing would end and the management of the nukes would pass totally below the hosting states.[1]"

In other words, these programs were developed so that once war began, control would pass to the host country to be used as they see fit. So once again we see the value in nuclear sharing programs - which are blatantly illegal under the Treaty, I might add.

I already mentioned that these programs are effective and provide the same benefit as actually having your own. Which is why the decision to prohibit their development makes no sense - now you have to kill hundreds of thousands in order to achieve the exact same strategic reality.

If Iran nuked Saudi Arabia, they would be utterly destroyed, whether by nuke or by conventional arms. There is simply no way around it - which is precisely why the entire prohibition scheme is so pointless. The US, Pakistan or China would inevitably nuke them or just destroy them conventionally. It is like saying we should ban a drug that kills its user instantly... Why? Its like banning suicide.

It is better for people to develop their arms openly, and for the international community to help them secure and store them safely, with a minimum of secrecy and a far better means of persuading others to adhere to good practices.

As for the expense, an ICBM (which Iran would need to hit the US) is insanely expensive. The per unit cost of a Peacekeeper ICBM is $70 million. Add on another 10-15 for a launcher. Add another $2-3 per year for maintenance and staff. And that is after thirty years of cost reductions - the price for Iran would be astronomically higher.