Friday, 7 August 2026
The question is why the word "proliferation" only applies to the countries that don't already have them.
https://x.com/nxt888/status/2085431299037339817
The United States has approximately 5,200 nuclear warheads.
It is the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons on human beings.
It used them on a civilian population. Twice.
The United Kingdom has approximately 225.
France has approximately 290.
These are the countries leading the international campaign against nuclear proliferation.
Not one of them has disarmed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which legally obligates them to work toward disarmament. Not one.
The NPT has been in force since 1970.
Fifty-six years.
The nuclear powers have modernized their arsenals, developed new delivery systems, and in the case of the United States, budgeted over $1.7 trillion for nuclear modernization over the next thirty years.
So your question, "Is proliferation good?", would be more interesting if you directed it at the countries that have been proliferating, continuously, for eighty years, while telling everyone else that the capacity they are expanding for themselves is too dangerous for others to possess.
The question is not whether nuclear weapons are good.
The question is why the word "proliferation" only applies to the countries that don't already have them.
That asymmetry is the argument.
You haven't addressed it.
