> -Maybe generalized proliferation would be better because:
> 1-Nuclear weapons cannot be "uninvented", so, countries who have
technology
> to build them can easily rebuild them if threatened. Disarmament so is a
> utopia unless new technologies make nuclear weapons obsolete.
I see what you mean, but it's difficult to imagine a credible Left movement defending proliferation of nuclear weapons, delivery systems and command and control mechanism in the long term.
> 2-When two states have nuclear weapons, both of them know that they can´t
> win
> a war against the other, so there is no advantege in starting a war in
which
> defeat (or a devastating stalemate) is almost certain. This probably
> prevented
> the cold war to become hot.
The fSU built a 100 tonne stockpile of enriched Uranium. Far in excess of the requirements for minimum deterrence.
> -And of course, the US agression war against a essentially disarmed
country
> -will no doubt trigger a new nuclear waepons race. It´s almost certain
Iran
> -will pursue nuclear technology, as almost any country who wants to avoid
> -being threatened by US imperialism.
I don't think the US and other P-5 states will allow smaller countries to acquire nuclear weapons. They would want to preserve their monopoly over the WMD. It is no less utopian to imagine P-5 states would allow proliferation of nuclear weapons. China, e.g. favours denuclearisation of Korean peninsula.
Ulhas