Self Defense: Individuals and Nations

[Spano]

My question has to do with where to draw the line between an individual's right to self defense and their potential as a threat to others. I want to discuss two situations, pertaining to arming of individuals and nations.

1. Many proponents of gun control(which I am not) present an argument against gun ownership on the grounds that possession of a weapon consitutes a potential threat to other individuals, and so try to invoke the security of the society against the individual. While this argument smacks of collectivsm and is has other problems, its strength lies in the fact that an irrational individual with a gun constitutes a real threat to others.

2. It seems that some(correct me if I am wrong) Objectivists here advocate attacking other nations wholly or at least partly on the basis of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. This seems to be at least somewhat analagous to the anti-gun position of deeming those nations potential threats, which of course they are. However, it would be inconsistent then to have WMD ourselves(the US).

My question then, is this. There is obviously some conflict between the right to self defense and mutual suspicion on the part of both individuals and nations. Does potential irrationality undermine the right to bear arms (and WMDs)? Would it not be inconsistent for the US to attack another nation purely on the fact of possession of said weapons?

Disclaimer: Before anyone accusses me of being anti-American or anything of the sort, note that I am asking this question to gain more understanding of Objectivism, not start a debate on current events.

[source]

Weapons of mass destruction can be used for self-defense as well and the fact that some nations posess such weapons is no reason to attack them. To do so, solely for this reason, would be announcing that they do not have the right to protect themselves from foreign invaders.

I believe that the Bush administration used this as an excuse to the world to invade Iraq. It was an excuse which does not have its roots in justice but an irrational fear from nuclear and biological weapons.

As for individuals posessing weapons, it is also a means of self-defense. Say someone was forbidden to have a weapon, but was under constant threat of being attacked by a group of thugs with baseball bats; he would have no means of defense except to call for the help of the police which wouldn't be able to do anything until it was too late.

[AspiringObjectivist]

I made a topic somewhat like this a while ago, perhaps you should check there, there were some nice replies:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=462

[stephen_speicher]

It seems that some(correct me if I am wrong) Objectivists here advocate attacking other nations wholly or at least partly on the basis of their possession of weapons of mass destruction.  This seems to be at least somewhat analagous to the anti-gun position of deeming those nations potential threats, which of course they are.  However, it would be inconsistent then to have WMD ourselves(the US).

Let's start first with the general principle: Any nation which does not fundamentally respect individual rights cannot claim the right to exist. I say "fundamentally" to distinguish between outright totalitarian regimes, and the mixture of rights violations in an otherwise rights-respecting country such as the United States.

As a consequence, the people within a non-rights-respecting nation have the right to overturn that regime and to establish a proper government. Likewise, any rights-respecting nation has the right to invade that nation and establish a proper government. Whether or not to actually invade is a decision to made based on self-interest.

If it is not in the self-interest of the free nation to invade, it could still be in their self-interest to destroy any means by which they may be harmed by the rogue nation. This is not limited to weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons, but to any threat deemed possible, including ordinary missile capbailities. In my view we should have acted on this principle long ago, destroying any Russian threat, Chinese threat, North Korean threat, and the threat from any of the blustering rogue Islamic nations today.

As to the gun control issue, clearly, then, there is no comparison to be made between the threat from a slave state and the "threat" from law-abiding citizens in a rights-respecting nation.