Is a nuke for every country the same thing as open carry for every person?

[Anonymous]

I've been told by many different people who like guns that if everyone carried a gun, we would all be safer. The rationale is that everyone would be respectful of one another because they would know that others could easily kill them, and thus they would not dare insult or abuse anyone.

I am not sure whether this is true; however, it is possible that the same logic applies to nuclear weapons. If every country had a nuclear weapon, would there be no more invasions or things of that sort occurring? Very possibly so. As current evidence, the United States has never attacked a country that has nuclear weapons, even though the United States keeps telling everyone that it's the toughest country in the world. Nuclear weapons have proven to be a very serious deterrent to the kinds of invasions the United States likes to perform on countries that don't have nuclear weapons. Like, for instance, Iran right now. Had it been proven that the Iranians had nuclear weapons before a few days ago, the US would have never started a war with them. The key to peace: just giving every country a nuclear weapon or two?

Updates

4 mo

One of the people that answered this question raised a very important point: You can't just give people nuclear weapons because if one of those people actually uses that nuclear weapon, there's going to be a horrendous amount of destruction and possibly a planetary war. I responded by saying that the United States is able to completely secure nuclear weapons that sometimes probably go in the hands of people that aren't all that dependable.

[Kaneki05]

No because crazy people exist, if even one fires a nuke we are screwed. A gun at least is contained, you can have a shooting but that shooting typically won't kill many people more injure. A nuke? Even if shot down over sea will have drastic effects to our environment and effect several countries, and causing surely more deaths whether directly or indirectly.

[Asker]

You raise very good points here that I had not considered, and I thank you for that. It turns out there are all sorts of ways to secure nuclear weapons such that they cannot be used inappropriately. The United States has to do that because they are worried about the same things that you mentioned. Nuclear submarines and bombers carry nuclear weapons that could easily be deployed by some somebody who just is holding a grudge if it were not for the very sophisticated security devices that make it essentially impossible to deploy and use them without proper authorization. I think that the same could be done to some extent if those weapons were provided to countries that are likely to be targets for invasions, or coups, or other activities that are damaging to their neighbors.

The other part of this is that it's not really important to actually have a nuclear weapon or a way of delivering it. What's important is that other countries believe that you have a nuclear weapon and a delivery system. And if they do believe that, they are not likely to invade your country. This is what probably would have happened in Iraq had things gone a bit further. And there would have been no invasion of Iraq, which would have saved a lot of lives.

[Asker]

I think the primary example of a country that may or may not have nuclear weapons, but that the U. S. avoids and will never invade, is North Korea. We really don't know if North Korea has nuclear weapons or not, but the North Koreans fired off a couple of missiles that arguably could have reached the West Coast of the United States, and that pretty much ended any U. S. plans of invasion. That occurred actually when Trump was president.

[Kaneki05]

Do you think Saddam Hussein or Hitler to such dictators wouldn't have a personal way to just override and send the nukes anyway if they had them?
Pretty sure they would. And thus is the problem.
Some dictators won't fire a nuke because they'd rather just rule iron fist over what they have and not be bothered but you get a unhinged dictator wants to see the world burn then that's what will happen.
Lucky said countries with nukes right now are more diplomatic than they may seem, and pick the preferred option as using it as you put to just make sure they aren't invaded.
But that can very quickly change, scarily so which is why nukes are such a problem.

[Asker]

You make good points, and you're right. They very well might have a personal way to do it. If not exactly that, they might have people willing to do it for them.

[Asker]

However, that logic also applies to U. S. military officers who have access to nuclear weapons as well. There is nothing saying that one of them might not fire one too. It's almost impossible to completely take the human element out of this.

[888theGreat]

I think every country should get them since the US can no longer be trusted to keep the Peace. Now America is the biggest threat in the world and stealing other countries resources and telling them what they can do and not do.

[exitseven]

No, you canniot kill thousands of people with a Glock.

[Asker]

Obviously you cannot kill thousands of people with a pistol, but that is also not what this question is about. Read it again.

[goaded]

Very similar. It's equally bullshit. Neither should be in the hands of toddlers.

[Dargil]

No because many Muslim countries are absolutely fucking nuts.

[Asker]

Well nuts, in what way I mean, I'm not sure they are any more likely to use nuclear weapons than anybody is. I mean if we're talking about nuts I would say the Israelis are pretty nuts too and they actually have real nuclear weapons that work as far as we know. So far they haven't used them on anybody. Thank God.

[Pterodon]

The radicals WILL use nukes. They’re a death cult. They blow themselves up all the time

[Asker]

@Pterodon you are entitled to your unsupported, disagreeable opinions. You simply don't like these people's religion, and you don't like their economies, you believe all the crazy propaganda you've been fed.

[Pterodon]

Actually I’m a world traveler and seen it myself

[Asker]

@Pterodon I see. Where exactly did your world travels take you and for how long?

[Pterodon]

I will not be interrogated by you. I’ve been around the world several times idgaf what their religion is. All I care is them building nukes while at the same time chanting death to America.

[Asker]

@Pterodon okay, Mr. World Traveler, you want to tell us what countries you've been to for how long, or do you want to just keep on with your world traveler bullshit?

[Dargil]

1911.45 ACP semi Automatic pistol. the chances of my proactively shooting Abdul or DeShawn Is virtually zero. The chances that one of them will shoot is much much higher. Possessing arms does not make you a Nut ball. wanting use them does.

[Pterodon]

I love my 1911. I carry her everyday

[Pterodon]

I’ve been around the world twice in hotspots in the Middle East and Caribbean courtesy of the US Navy

[Asker]

Anyway, you are not qualified to determine whether or not somebody is "nuts."

[Asker]

@Pterodon that's not exactly being a world traveler. That's like being a sailor, and you probably were on a ship, correct?

[Asker]

@Pterodon, do you have evidence for this, or is this just an expression of your innate fears or of your over-propagandized thinking?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

That's not propaganda you ridiculous fool. It's a fact that muslims are willing to blow themselves up to kill non-muslims, especially christians and jews. they are literally told by their clerics that they get to marry 70 virgins in heaven if they murder a Jew.