[q=Garland]Every nation should have a nuclear arsenal. That way, every nation in the world is militarily on an equal playing field. The good thing about nuclear weapons in comparison to standard weapons, is that quantity isn't so important. A small nation can be on equal might to a large one. The US for example, has enough nukes to destroy the entire world, several times over. More simply becomes overkill. If everyone had a nuclear arsenal, there would be no military superpower anymore, because once *everyone* in the world can destroy the entire world with a few dozen or so nuclear weapons, what nation really has the upper hand? If everyone had sufficient nuclear weapons, it would then be as if noone at all had nuclear weapons. Isn't that the goal?[/q]Good in theory. However, an over-abundance of nuclear weapons would substantially increase the chances of terrorists or rogue individuals getting their hands on the weapons. When it's a state that's holding the button, no-one's going to risk starting a nuclear conflict. But an international group with no "homeland" has nothing to lose by using WMDs to strike at its enemies. A nuclear retaliation isn't possible against such an attack, so they'd be likely to "get away with it", more or less.

Even now, there are plenty of nuclear arms that simply aren't accounted for. In the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they lost about a hundred "suitcase bombs" - portable nuclear bombs the size of a large suitcase. Relatively low yield compared to the kind used in cruise missiles, and pretty insignificant compared to thermonuclear weapons, but still enough to devastate a city. And a hundred of them simply went missing. Imagine how bad it could be if every nation had its own supply of such weapons...