along the lines of that last post this is complete madness.
the reason nuclear proliferation is bad is because it increases the chances that a nuclear weapon will actually be used. using a nuclear weapon is mass murder, perhaps the worst thing a country could do. it is, and should be, completely beyond the pale.
but that's all the more reason we should stay focused on what is really wrong with proliferation. proliferation is not bad in and of itself. it's only bad because it is likely to lead to the real evil: the use of nuclear weapons. i'm all for non-proliferation. i do believe it is the best way to minimize the chances of a nuclear weapon going off. but again, the ultimate goal is to prevent exploding nukes. non-proliferation is just the means for doing that. if we could somehow guarantee that if everyone had nukes, none would ever explode, then i'd be pro-proliferation.
which is why using nuclear weapons to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is so mind-bogglingly stupid. the reason we want to stop the spread is to stop the use. but if we have to use to stop the spread, then we've already lost. put another way, the real goal is to prevent a nuclear explosion. so setting off one is a particularly bad way of doing it.
ADDENDUM: i realize that proliferation also increases the danger of nuclear blackmail. but when NATO says that it will nuke countries to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons isn't that nuclear blackmail in and of itself? once again, wouldn't NATO be doing the very thing that it is supposedly trying to prevent?