Ideally, sure it would be good if the whole world disarmed their nuclear capacities. We don't live in an ideal world though and no serious power is going to trust their adversaries to do so. So it is what it is.
So instead the entrenched nuclear powers try to stop nukes from proliferating in countries that don't have them. The argument given is that they're worried about a rogue state that might actually be willing to use them getting nukes. While there's some legitimacy to this concern, the reality is even without that threat, nukes shift the balance of power and so obviously the entrenched powers don't want that.
Hence why the DPRK is never going to abandon their nuclear program. They see it as essential to their security and a deterrent from Western powers to seriously intervene in the region.
Same with Iran. After we invaded Iraq over supposed WMDs, Gaddafi in Libya openly agreed to get rid of his own WMDs to avoid being the next target and there was a brief period where Iran would've been potentially open to working with us and perhaps not pursuing nukes.
Then Bush put them on the axis of evil list and they've been steadily pursuing nukes since then, and have come increasingly in our cross hairs. Meanwhile, beyond some saber rattling here and there, nobody seriously considers invading NK because of the destruction they could reign on SK and Japan. As for Libya, we helped over throw Gaddafi the first chance we got, despite his concessions.
The message other world leaders take from this is crystal clear. Proliferating nukes is a safer bet than disarmament, with regard to dissuading intervention from larger powers.
|