The right to own a nuclear weapon

[Dan9999999]

If individual citizen's are allowed to own nuclear weapons the result would be chaos. People would be unable to stop a lunatic from aquireing a nuclear weapon even if they strongly suspected that he would use it. Moreover if the government bans nuclear weapons isn't this equall to a use of unporvoked force?

[andrew]

I' m pretty sure nuclear weapons would be rather expensive if introduced into an open market

[danielshrugged]

Common sense helps on this one. Just as the government has the right to interfere if one person points a gun at another, since there is reason to believe force might be used, so too does the government have the right to intervene, e.g., by requiring permits and careful monitoring, should anyone desire a nuclear weapon; for few people have any need for a nuclear weapon that doesn't involve massive destruction.

[Old Geezer]

People would be unable to stop a lunatic from aquireing a nuclear weapon even if they strongly suspected that he would use it.

Dan99999

Sadly, many governments are unwilling to stop lunatics from acquiring nuclear weopans even in our present circumstances (see NK, Pakistan etc)

[y_feldblum]

Two hundred years ago, what ought the government have done re somebody who invented a machine gun?

[Dan9999999]

A machine gun 200 or even 500 years ago doesn't compare with a nuclear weapon today. It seems that the government must prevent people from acquiring nuclear weapons, and possibly some chemical and biological agents, under the idea that the only possible use is to harm others and the idea that they are simply too dangerous and could uniquely destabilize society.

[andrew]

From what you said, one could say, "It seems that the government must prevent people from acquiring assualt rifles, and possibly some hand guns and semi-automatic weapons, under the idea that the only possible use is to harm others and the idea that they are simply too dangerous and could uniquely destabilize society."

I would say this goes back that whole concept of "guns don't kill people, people kill people." My point is that a private individual could acquire a nuclear weapon but never use it as a threat. I see your point, but the problem is where do we objectively draw the line?

[Capitalism Forever]

My point is that a private individual could acquire a nuclear weapon but never use it as a threat.

In that case, there would still be the danger that something unintended may happen to it (stolen by terrorists, accidental detonation, etc.). You do not have a right to endanger the lives of other people.

The solution could be a law requiring anyone who wishes to keep any seriously hazardous object to implement documented and verifiable safety measures.

[y_feldblum]

Dan,

That's exactly the same justification for banning all manner weapons - now "assault rifles", tomorrow handguns, the day after even scissors in third grade will be too dangerous to be acceptible in society. Meanwhile, a hundred years ago, kids brought their shotguns to school (football hadn't yet replaced hunting as the popular after-school activity).

We can also guarantee that government will summarily execute in a particularly painful manner anybody who commits mass murder, whether intentionally or by accident - and no guarantee against vigilante justice, and confiscate any wealth he may have and donate it to the vigilante who comes up with the most torturous method of execution.

"Any seriously hazardous object", "Documented and verifiable safety measures" - subjectivist (what is the line for hazardousness? documented and verifiable according to what standard?), and would tend to promote shoddy documentation and cheap measures, like all government regulation does.

[Old Geezer]

Presumably, if a person is allowed to own 1 Nuke, they can own 20,000 nukes. This offers an individual the unique ability to create a de facto coercive monopoly on force. In such a case the government would not be able to counter the threats of the individual to other members of society.

This is not something which is allowed under the type of government envisioned under objectivism.

[danielshrugged]

That's exactly the same justification for banning all manner weapons

It's not usually the justification used for banning handguns; still, I would say that if it WERE the justification used in a discussion of whether to ban handguns, it should be dismissed not because pre-empting a threat of force is wrong, but rather because owning a handgun alone is not evidence that someone intends to initiate force.

Meanwhile, a hundred years ago, kids brought their shotguns to school

The issue is contextual. Bringing a shotgun to school back then did not indicate a threat of force; today it does.

We can also guarantee that government will summarily execute in a particularly painful manner anybody who commits mass murder, whether intentionally or by accident - and no guarantee against vigilante justice, and confiscate any wealth he may have and donate it to the vigilante who comes up with the most torturous method of execution.

That makes the millions of dead people feel so much better.

The question of whether a particular weapon indicates a threat to initiate force is a real one. I think nukes, in today's context, would indicate at least some evidence of a threat and therefore MUST be monitored.

[y_feldblum]

Daniel,

"Handguns are too dangerous to let people have them unlicenced and unmonitored - and ideally at all." Is that not the justification for regulating or banning handguns? And is that not essentially the justification offered here for regulating wmd?

The issue is not contextual, at least in the sense you mean. Having a handgun in one's pocket, or strapping an M16 to one's back, is by no means aggression or its intent, whether then or now, in school or in public. Pointing it at people, on the other hand, is. Having an ability does not constitute a threat to use it; otherwise we would be killing of every computer expert we can find lest they hack into banking systems and steal money. Threatening to use constitutes a threat to use it.

The moment one violates another's rights, one loses all claim to one's own (though society may restore it to some degree). Mass-murder by negligence follows this standard. Normally, we punish murder by negligence not with torturous death but with some time behind bars. Though there is no reason murderers by negligence deserve, by absolute justice, such treatment, there is no reason we must punish them at all except to serve as a deterrent to keep others less negligent. The harsher the penalty awaiting a person, the less likely he is to commit a crime inviting that penalty. Make the penalty for mass murder by negligence torturous death, and it is quite a deterrence.

Geezer,

Ultimately, it is up to the people to keep and guard their own freedom. If government cannot guarantee to do it, then let the people take up arms and do it themselves.

[NIJamesHughes]

As a rational CEO for a nuclear company would you sell nuclear weopons to anyone? Why even produce them? The only market for them is very limited. And a US companies market is even more limited.

I would say that the problem could be solved by the manufactures themselves.

[Old Geezer]

"Geezer,

Ultimately, it is up to the people to keep and guard their own freedom. If government cannot guarantee to do it, then let the people take up arms and do it themselves. "

Y fel

Y, thats my point.... it is government's responsibility to make sure it can adequetely respond to any potential threat of force... otherwise it is not a stable and functional government.

In fact, one of the differences between objectivism and anarchism is that under objectivism the government strives to maintain a monopoly on the use of force.

[danielshrugged]

My point is that, in certain situations, having an ability IS evidence of a threat of its use. In today's context, that is not true of weapons commonly used for self-defense, sport, or hunting. But I can see no motive for acquiring a nuke except mass destruction.

Even if that were not the motive, a nuke is like a gun constantly pointed at everyone in a city. A person who owns a nuke need only come home depressed and angry--and then there's a problem.

[Old Geezer]

"My point is that, in certain situations, having an ability IS evidence of a threat of its use. In today's context, that is not true of weapons commonly used for self-defense, sport, or hunting."

DS

Well said

[andrew]

"Having an ability IS evidence of a threat of its use" What do you mean by that and where does one draw the line? Let's say I have enough money to purchase a banned weapon on the black market, could the government come and arrest me because I have the ability to be a threat? This is an extreme but what you just said warrants it due to your statement's subjectivity.

The owner of the nuclear weapon is only a threat when they CHOOSE to arm and aim it at others.

[Old Geezer]

""Having an ability IS evidence of a threat of its use" What do you mean by that and where does one draw the line?"

The types of nuclear weopans which exist in the world today have two functions potential functions and two potential functions only. I can not imagine a scenario where somebody outside of a government could credibly be using Nukes for anything other than threats or destruction.

Where does one draw the line??? It depends on what the ability is and where it is expected to be exercised. If the ability has to do with boxcutters, you dont allow them to come with passengers on airplanes, but you do allow boxcutters to be used everywhere else imaginable.

[MinorityOfOne]

The problem with private ownership of WMDs is that they're insanely indiscriminate. If you have a gun, you can point it at the guy who's trying to mug you. If you have a nuclear weapon, you can do what -- point it at a city? C'mon...

[DavidV]

I think any such question has to consider the context of how and why someone obtained a nuclear weapon. Unlike conventional weapons, getting nukes is a major financial and/or technical undertaking. There are only a few reasons why someone would get a nuke, and there is an appropriate governmental response to each. Let’s imagine some circumstances under which someone would want a nuke:

-A free government seeking to defend itself against a military threat by purchasing a nuke from another country: In this case, a government should allow a nuke to be made and exported to the customer country.

-An aggressor state/group wanting a nuke: Obviously this should be banned.

-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.

-A wealthy individual/group wanting a nuke for no good reason: If someone wants a nuclear weapon for no good reason, there’s reason to question their sanity/motives. The government should probably not allow this.

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.

[Old Geezer]

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.

GC, I am inclined to agree with your points, including this one.... but I still have some questions.

Would such a nuke still be defined as a weopan? How could one Differentiate?

What about security? For instance Pre-AQ Bin Laden's father owned a construction Business and Hundred's of millions of dollars worth of assets were available. Under such a situation as you mentioned, Bin Laden could easily have obtained a Nuke intended for commerical purposes. How should such a threat be approached?

[RadCap]

Two things:

- Did we not have a discussion on this point (or one similar to it) previously (I may be confusing this with the old capmag forum, I don't remember)?

- When considering this issue, remember something: govt has a legal monoply on the use of force. In other words, citizen's delegate to their agent their right to decide how, when where, under what conditions, etc to use force. As such, it is the proper role of govt to determine what force, if any, a citizen may use, and thus what arms he may or may not possess.

I would suggest that ownership and/or use of nuclear explosives would not be permitted to individuals in almost any circumstance. AND in those very rare circumstances, its use would be through and by the govt. In other words, there would be no private ownership of nuclear weapons whatsoever.

[Dan9999999]

The essential problem is the unique destructive capacity of nuclear weapons. 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. The situation I imagine is that a person with no provable intent to use a weapon, but a secret desire, obtains a nuke from a failing nuclear power like Russia, and by the time he has it, it's already too late to do anything.

Yes, the logic for banning nuclear weapons sounds like the logic for banning all weapons but the unique destructive ability of nuclear weapons means that there must be some restraint on acquiring them.

[Capitalism Forever]

The essential problem is the unique destructive capacity of nuclear weapons. 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.

Nukes are not so special: they belong into the category of severely hazardous goods. As I already suggested, such goods should only be allowed to be kept as long as the owner provides adequate assurances about his peaceful intentions and about the safety procedures he follows--NOT because we do not recognize his right to property, but because we recognize everyone else's right to his life.

A right, properly defined, can never conflict with the rights of another person. The nuke guy has a right to keep the fruits of his labor and do with them whatever he pleases--as long as he doesn't threaten the rights of others.

There is no exception involved here; it all flows from the norms. The same principles apply to keeping and bearing handguns (or canisters of gasoline, or swiss army knives, or whatever else), only that the principles are applied a bit differently. For example, if one of the patrons gets drunk in a bar and starts fooling around with his handgun, juggling it in his hands etc., the other patrons have every right to forcibly stop him from doing so. While he has a right to wield his handgun, he has no right to create a serious possibility that he will accidentally shoot someone. It's the same for severely hazardous goods--except that their mere ownership gives rise to a serious possibility of an accident, unless safe handling is guaranteed.

(The above applies to all kinds of nuclear facilities. In the case of nuclear weapons, the requirement for the owner to show a peaceful intention basically means that nuclear weapons can only be owned as part of a government function.)

[RadCap]

Dan and CF

I tried to hint at this previously, but that does not seem to have worked, so I will be a bit more blunt:

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

As it stands, this is an apparent contradiction. In the first instance, it is the individual who has the right to decide if, when, and how a particular form of force may be used. In the second, it is the govt which decides if, when, and how force may be used.

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?

OR - are the two premises irreconcilable? That being the case, one or both are wrong. If so, which ones and why?