Nuclear Arms

The worldpress.com had an article by The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/world/25prexy.html?_r=1&hp&ex=&ei=&partner) called "U.N. Security Council Adopts Measure on Nuclear Arms".

The article was a straightforward report of the U.N. coucil meet lead by Barack Obama. I think that it is all well and fine that these people can sit around a desk and say they are going to stop nuclear polifieration. They are concerned about private groups developeing nuclear warheads. I honestly think it is very hypocritical for a group of countries where 90% of them have nuclear weapons to say that others cannot make them. I think that countries need to practice what they preach.

If nuclear weapons are bad then why have them? The argument is that "well, the bad guys have them". Basically, in the event of a nuclear attack we want to be able to fire back. I ask what good does that do? Have they never seen the movie War Games? Nuclear War ends in devastation for all. So, why does it matter if they have them? If they use theirs, we will use ours. It is a common fact. Why have them in the first place then?

I know a decent amount of physics, and the process of nuclear fission and atom splitting which is used to create nuclear weapons is an exact science; however, in order for this to work there have to be EXACT conditions. How do they expect private citizens to be capable of having the faclities to create these weapons without their government knowing? For that matter without the rest of the governments of the world knowing?

I think this whole nuclear arms debate and laws goes back to merchantilism. Basically, if someone else has the wealth then you DON'T HAVE IT. Therefore, you must bully them out of it. If you have nuclear weapons and they don't and you say "give me or we blow you up" you give it to them. That's why a world without weapons would not work. There will always be bullies in the world.