The right to own a nuclear weapon

[AshRyan]

...Just as Rand suggested that in emergencies we need to slightly alter ethical standards, while not compromising general morality, we must have special ethical standards for WMD...

A point of correction: Rand did not suggest that in emergencies we need to alter ethical standards. Rather, she explained how the same ethical standards would have to be applied differently in the relevantly different context of emergencies.

The same thing will no doubt be true of the correct solution to the weapon problem under discussion.

[Bearster]

A "government" is the sanctioned group of men who have final control over the use of force in a geographic region.

Anarchism is when there exists no government, because more than one group contends for final control over the use of force.

It's easy to see that if any would be mass-murderer could buy a nuke, the result would be mass murder. It's harder to defend the principle that nukes should be illegal to possess by private citizens and at the same time defend the principle of liberty.

The defense is simple. Anyone who possesses a nuke contends for final control over the use of force. A society in which nukes are legal is an anarchy.

A proper capitalist government does not tolerate competitors for control over force; it retains a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force for the express purpose of prohibitting the initiation of the use of force. Without such a monopoly, it is powerless to accomplish its purpose.

Defensive use of force is the right of every citizen, and thus guns are legal.

[RadCap]

While I believe your last paragraph is intended to explain why the govt sanctions individual ownership of SOME (not all) guns, it is ambiguously worded so it could also mean that individuals have the right to any and/or all guns despite what the govt may say when it comes to controlling weapons and force.

Would you please elaborate on this distinction more cearly so we may understand your intent.

[Capitalism Forever]

Properly, the individual has the right to self-defense.  Also properly, govt is a monopoly on force in a given geographic area.

[...]

How does one reconcile these seemingly opposite premises?  If they CAN be reconciledd, how does this reconciliation apply to weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons?

The individual has the right to defend himself in whatever way necessary when faced with an immediate threat of force, IOW in an emergency. Other than that, the government has a monopoly on the use of force: in non-emergency situations and for the purposes of retaliation, individuals use force through their delegate, which is the government.

Since WMDs are not the kind of weapons one uses for immediate, personal self-defense, it is up to the government to decide if, when, and how they are to be used.

[RadCap]

"The individual has the right to defend himself in whatever way necessary when faced with an immediate threat of force, IOW in an emergency."

"Since WMDs are not the kind of weapons one uses for immediate, personal self-defense, it is up to the government to decide if, when, and how they are to be used."

With these two sentences, you suggest, but do not state explicitly, that govt decides what weapons an individual may or may not have for purposes of self-defense in emergency situations. Is this a proper understanding of your intent?

[poohat]

With these two sentences, you suggest, but do not state explicitly, that govt decides what weapons an individual may or may not have for purposes of self-defense in emergency situations.  Is this a proper understanding of your intent?

Well in practice the government is always going to decide what weapons an individual may have for the purpose of self defence, but this decision does not have to be arbitrary, and certainly doesnt have the power to alter reality. There is no real way to formulate a rational argument that a nuclear weapon is a valid item of self defence at a personal level, and no real way to formulate an argument that a pistol is an instrument likely to cause genocide. Even if a government were to declare that a nuclear weapon is acceptable for self-defence, that would not make it so.

There is a certain grey area where the boundaries are a bit fuzzy and subjective interpretation may be necessary (for instance, would sub-machine guns or fighter planes be classed as weapons of mass destruction at an individual ownership level? It depends what you want to be defending yourself against I suppose), but in general the boundaries are clearly enough defined to make objective judgement possible.

[Capitalism Forever]

With these two sentences, you suggest, but do not state explicitly, that govt decides what weapons an individual may or may not have for purposes of self-defense in emergency situations.  Is this a proper understanding of your intent?

There are two questions involved here: 1) which weapons are, by their nature, suited for personal emergency self-defense but not for large-scale warfare; and 2) among the weapons falling into that category, which are allowed to be used and which are not. The first question is a question of fact; the second one is a question of permission--so I would say that the first question should be answered, in case of disputes, by the courts, while the answer to the second question should be "all are allowed."

[NIJamesHughes]

The point i was trying to make is that the question is irrelevent because there is no rational, selfish Reason that a company would produce nuclear weapons. The market wouldn't allow the existence of such a company. Mainly because they would have no market.

But for the sake of arguement suppose that there was a compnay that produced nukes for sale. Suppose that you are the CEO. When Syria comes to purchuse one of your weapons, will you sell one to them? Not if self-interest is one of your motivations.

Free to do business also means Free not to do business.

[Bearster]

One who possesses a nuclear bomb necessarily competes for final control over the use of physical force in a geographic area.

When two or more groups compete for final control over force, that is anarchism.

The result of this would be quite predictable, even to those without an advanced understanding of Objectivism.

[amagi]

RadCap says:

With these two sentences, you suggest, but do not state explicitly, that govt decides what weapons an individual may or may not have for purposes of self-defense in emergency situations. Is this a proper understanding of your intent?

My view is that it is necessary for government to decide which weapons individuals are allowed to own for the purpose of self-defense. The right to bear arms is not the right to bear any arms. As others have said, a government that allows private citizens to own nuclear weapons relinquishes its monopoly on the use of force, because it is no longer in a position to maintain that monopoly against any armed and hostile citizen.

A nuke in the hands of a private citizen is not simply a matter of initiated force against fellow citizens (by virtue of extreme risk or some such reason)--it is a matter of national security. Asking whether a citizen should be allowed to own a nuke is like asking whether an individual should be allowed to own a large private army or navy, which (even though all the soldiers would be involved through voluntary contract!!) is obviously absurd.

GreedyCapitalist says:

A domestic entity wanting a low-yield nuke for commercial purposes (such as building roads or canals.): Assuming everything checks out and doesn’t pose a threat to any third party, the government should allow it to be built and sold.

...Anyway, such a question presumes a free country, a principled foreign policy, and a law-abiding society. In situations of a terrorist threat or civil unrest, permitting nuke sales would clearly be unreasonable.

I don't believe the government should ever just hand over a nuke to any private organization (especially on the grounds that "everything checks out"), regardless of whether society is "law-abiding" (by what standard?) or whether there is an imminent terrorist threat. No amount of demonstration of supposedly legitimate motive can justify the risk.

However, I think it's reasonable to allow the military to directly supervise the use of nukes for private construction projects or the like, providing that the private company pays the government's expenses. (This is very hypothetical, since in today's context of hysterical public fear of radiation, I can't see any company ever wanting to bear the backlash of using nukes any time soon)

[Invictus]

None of the arguments regarding the right to posses small arms apply with nuclear weapons. The purpose of WMD's is to cause death and destruction on a colossal scale, whereas firearms act as both a means to protect your property and a defence against governmental tyranny.

I recall Michael Moore asking this question in his "documentary", Bowling for Columbine , as an argument against unrestricted access to arms.

[Scott_Connery]

Sorry to dredge up this old thread, but I had to add my two cents. Nuclear bombs could be useful in powering spacecraft, and mining (terrestrial or otherwise). Read more about Project Orion here: Project Orion.

I can't think of any reason consistent with Objectivism that would deny businessmen the ability to undertake such ventures.

Also, if nukes are illegal, then would then equivalent quantity of conventional explosives be illegal? If yes, then what about half that quantity? Or just the ingredients to make them? Would an Objectivist government outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel? Even though the simple adding of the two can result in an incredibly large and potent bomb?

[Unconquered]

I can't think of any reason consistent with Objectivism that would deny businessmen the ability to undertake such ventures.

The issue is the government acting in its role to protect rights. As long as it can be shown that using a nuke isn't going to violate rights, then its use should be ok (given some hypothetical rational future.) But given their immense destructive potential, I think there ought to be a certain legally mandated level of pro-active effort to demonstrate their safe storage and usage by any organization wanting to do so. An H-bomb constructed in the middle of Los Angeles is not a potential violation of rights, it *is* a violation of rights by constituting a reasonable clear and present danger. There is every justification to keep it out, and none to build it there. They could be constructed and stored in secure facilities in a desert, or in space, on an as-needed basis - it isn't like you'd need lots of these things at once.

I would also say that until there's a big change in the world, no private organization should be permitted to construct and own nuclear devices. There's too big of a threat that they could be acquired and deployed by terrorists or terrorist countries.

[mrocktor]

Private ownership of nuclear weapons is a difficult question for sure, but argumentum ad consequentiam is not the way to answer it. "If it were allowed someone could..." will never provide an acceptable principle to deal with any issue. When the body count gets high enough does pragmatism become valid? No.

Principle would dictate that unless there is credible evidence that the person procuring (or owning) a nuke intends to use it in a rights violating way (which includes challenging the government, the government's sole function being the protection of rights a challenge of it necessarily means intent to violate rights) the government should not use force against that person.

mrocktor

Edited March 9, 2006 by mrocktor

[Daedalus]

"When people organize private armies, that is a form of anarchism. It's no longer the government as the exclusive monopoly on the use of physical force." -- The Leonard Dr. Peikoff Show, "'Rightist' Militias"

Privately-owned nuclear weapons constitute an even greater threat to the government's monopoly than a band of men with rifles.

Suppose Citizen Smith is dissatisfied with the way the government is being run. He finds it wasteful, unresponsive and generally incompetent. He demands a thorough house-cleaning and reorganization. The government refuses. An embittered Smith then aims his nuclear-tipped missle at the nation's capital. What happens then? You take it from there.

A monopoly cannot be maintained without extreme vigilance. It is not enough that the nukes themselves remain exclusively in government hands; the entire system of technology, manufacture of components, and assembly should be 100% government-owned.

The alternative is anarchism.

[DavidV]

It’s pretty ignorant to argue that nuclear production should be done by government, since nuclear weapons are a high-technology product that requires large-scale manufacturing facilities only available and practically realizable by private enterprise. Countries like the USSR that attempted to manufacture their own nukes not only had numerous accidents, but it is estimated that the majority of their weapons were defective. As you may recall, the Soviet Union redirected so much of their national production to building a nuclear arsenal that they had to beg the U.S for food aid, but they still couldn’t keep up with the U.S. even with their “quantity over quality” strategy. Not to mention that they stole all their technology from the U.S.

As far as I know, the US military does not manufacture its own “production” nukes, at least not the non-nuclear components. Nuke production is usually done on federal land, but contracted out to private companies. I have a feeling that if the federal government tried to make its own nukes, we’d have blowups and the like all over the place.

It’s funny that LA was mentioned as a source of nuke manufacture, since non-nuclear components for U.S. nukes are actually produced within the city limits of Kansas City, Missouri. (Which shares the complex with the IRS, among other things.) The nuclear portions are assembled somewhere in New Mexico, I think.

For a list of U.S. nuke production/storage facilities, see:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/index.html

[Daedalus]

The Manhattan Project stands as a shining example of government-owned weapons production. It serves as proof of the miraculous contributions man can make to mankind when he is free to act in accordance with his mind and values. Ayn Rand even planned to write a screenplay about this challenging and pioneering endeavor.

[Unconquered]

As far as I know, the US military does not manufacture its own “production” nukes, at least not the non-nuclear components. Nuke production is usually done on federal land, but contracted out to private companies.

Well, sure. As far as I know, *absolutely nothing* used by the U.S. military is actually built by the U.S. government. Nominally private companies - acting under very stringent controls by the government (I've worked for such companies, you can bet that they don't do "whatever they want") - actually design and construct these weapons per government requirements. Does anyone think that the contractors building weapons systems for the U.S. government - not just nuclear, but jet engines, advanced electronics, radar, advanced materials, you name it - have a free hand to sell that technology to, say, Iran or North Korea or even nominally U.S. allies? Think twice. You can say they are "private" companies but they are, to a significant degree, under defacto government control, and in this case, I don't think that's a problem.

The Pantex plant in Texas is the sole site for dealing with the assembled nuclear warheads. See:

http://www.pantex.com/ds/pxgeng.htm

From that website: "Pantex Plant is America's only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility. Located on the High Plains of the Texas Panhandle, 17 miles northeast of Amarillo, Pantex is centered on a 16,000-acre site just north of U. S. Highway 60 in Carson County."

On Google maps, it's here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&sll=...416606,0.651627

the gray area in the middle of the map. It's pretty far away from a small city, Amarillo, and a very long ways from a major population center. They weren't stupid and weren't going to put such a place in the middle of e.g. Los Angeles, which was my point re: a private company doing whatever it wants, wherever it wants.

P.S. I don't mean to imply, on re-reading this, that a future nuke-creating private company *would* be so stupid as to put their production in a major population center, only to stress that the only (basically government controlled) one in existence now *is not* in such a place by design, and it's entirely legitimate, in the future, for there to be explicit restrictions on the construction and use of these immensely powerful devices in order to protect rights, a legitimate government function.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Unconquered

[DavidV]

The Manhattan Project stands as a shining example...

Shining relative to what? The project cost was $20 billion 1996 dollars as of August 1945. That's $5 billion per nuke. By comparison, the cost of ALL bombs, mines and grenades was made during WWII was $31.5 billion.

The total cost of the U.S. nuclear program from 1940 to 1996 is about $5.5 trillion.

Private contractors account for about 90% of the more than 100,000 contract employees of the DOE, with a $18 billion/year budget. How much would the cost be if private enterprise did it all?

[Daedalus]

Private contractors have done a fine job of manufacturing nukes -- researched and developed on government property by government employees with military supervision..

I do not know what the monetary cost would be of letting private contractors handle all our military requirements. I can speak to the issue of what the ethical and social costs would be. As long as the means of retaliatory force remain in the hands of a proper legal monopoly, man has a promising future. But when any U.S. citizen without a rap sheet can acquire devices for annihilating entire cities in an instant, our days as a free nation are numbered.

I hope I never live to see the War in Kosovo being fought by the Hertz Army, the War in Iraq being fought by the Avis Army, and the War in Colombia being fought by the Budget Army.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff has spoken brilliantly on what the rise of private armies and the concentration of force in private hands would mean to a nation's future.

[Scott_Connery]

Dr. Leonard Peikoff has spoken brilliantly on what the rise of private armies and the concentration of force in private hands would mean to a nation's future.

Any country that regulates businessmen because they might do something wrong, even though there is no evidence to suggest that they will, can hardly be called Objectivist.

[Unconquered]

Any country that regulates businessmen because they might do something wrong, even though there is no evidence to suggest that they will, can hardly be called Objectivist.

Prohibiting the construction/storage/deployment of potential weapons of mass destruction in a way that protects the right of people to not to be incinerated by a screwup or deliberate malice, would be the proper role of a rational government. To fail to do so would be a default on its responsibility to protect rights. It would be as proper as forbidding somebody from walking around downtown Manhattan while they carry cannisters of chemicals that have some legitimate productive use, but which act as a nerve gas if released. It's an issue of *context*.

The view that "anybody should be able to do anything and own any weapons they want, in any quantity", is a distinctly Libertarian view, often expressed. Do not confuse it with a position compatible with Objectivism. And make no mistake that a nuclear device of the future for ostensibly peaceful uses is still quite the potential weapon.

This is a general principle not restricted to "exotic" technologies. Nobody should, for example, be driving around a dumptruck full of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the middle of a large city. There aren't any fields to fertilize there and there is no rational purpose for it to be there, but it poses an enormous threat if mixed with some fuel oil and shocked, when it becomes a high explosive. (This is what was used in the Okla. City bomb.)

One more P.S. now that I think about it: My granting the possibility of a future legitimate private use of nuclear devices does not mean that I endorse the idea of "private armies" and other such nonsense. I'm sure they'll be handy to help clear Lunar mountains out of the way.

Edited March 11, 2006 by Unconquered