Is hoping for a nuke-free world " childish "?
No. What's childish is to not recognize the real-world constraints under which we opperate which prevent that from happening.
For the 100th time.
Is China a democracy?
Of course not. That has never been in dispute, and I've already talked about the issue of China and nuclear weapons. You are adding nothing to the diuscussion, and have not addressed the points I raised in regards to China last time I talked about it, so why are you bringing it up again? You tell me how to get China to disarm, and we'll talk. Otherwise, you've got no point.
That worked out as the nations involved were only two.
That's not true, there were several nuclear powers during the cold war, even if divided into essentially two camps. But in any case, this is why it's important to limit nuclear weapons from spreading to other countries: we CANNOT depend on cooperation to prevent nuclear war, we can ONLY depend upon self-interest (the only motive which has ever been reliable in predicting a nation's actions), and those calculations and balances become exponentially harder the more players enter the game. Once again, fairness is not what we should be aiming for. Fairness can get us all killed.
They declared unilaterally war to the US?
When?
Did I say war? No, I said enmity. War requires enmity, but enmity does not require war. Do not attribute to me a position I did not express. But in case you're curious, their enmity with us started in 1979.
There is no war between the US and Iran, AFAIK
I never said there was.
No, actually, we don't know that. We don't have clear-cut evidence of a violation of the NPT yet, only IAEA regulations. But IAEA regulations are there to try to prevent violations of the NPT. It is reasonable to suspect that the reason for IAEA regulation violations is
so that they will be able to violate the NPT by getting nuclear weapons.
Also, they get inspected continuously.
Under certain definitions of "continuously".
Why are not the US and Russia inspected by the IAEA?
Oh, but they are. The IAEA does not monitor our actual nuclear weapons programs (what would be the point? To ensure that we haven't disarmed in secret?), but they DO monitor our civilian nuclear industry.
One is an enemy dictatorship and one is an allied democracy. I consider those differences to be rather significant, and warranting of different treatment by the US.
You claimed:
" It's very difficult to dismantle nukes owned by another country, because nukes are small and easy to hide, which essentially mean you can't do it without their consent unless you conquer them. "
I contest this point.
I ask for evidence.
A nuclear weapon can fit inside a van. They aren't big, they can be dispersed, and you can put them just about anywhere you want. A nuclear weapons program, by contrast, cannot be so hidden.
Of course not - just as you haven't asked China if they would. I don't need to. All I need to do is consider what their interests are. China considers itself as a potential enemy of the United States. It is militarily weak compared to the US, and so would lose badly in any war it fought with us. Their defensive strategy relies largely on making war costly enough that we would not ever choose to go to war with them, even knowing we would win. The only way to do that right now is with nuclear weapons. That is their only method for getting anything close to military parity with us. Our relative superiority in conventional military power is so overwhelming that they would be at a GREATER disadvantage if both China and the US were to give up nuclear weapons. So why on earth would they EVER give them up? Because they're
nice? Don't make me laugh.
Evidence?
Is that only your unsupported opinion or what?
No, it's an obvious consequence of self-interest and power. Relative power matters. Aqcuiring nukes would create far more relative power for a small country if we had no nuclear arsenal than if we maintain the one we have. Therefore the incentive to get them goes up if we disarm. It's simple game-theory analysis. I note that why you seem incredulous about this simple statement, you don't actually have any counter-argument for why it's wrong.
