I am interested in this topic from the perspective of “sovereignty”, the concept that a government has the inherent right to have independent authority in its own territory, specifically to protect the interest of its own citizens.
Although philosophers have argued that sovereignty is qualified by the need to use it morally, I have not seen a clear argument of how simply having a nuclear weapon is inherently immoral. If so, then all countries that have nukes would be immoral. So the question seems to lie in the purpose of N. Korea having a nuclear weapon, and it would be hard to argue that its justification would be any different from the rational of other countries in possession: mainly, as a deterrent against foreign attack and to protect its citizens.
Leaving aside personal emotions and perspectives about nuclear weapons and specific countries, it seems to me that if half of the people on my block were able to have a gun, I would want one too, even if people didn't trust me (maybe even more so because they don’t trust me).
It seems like sovereignty only exists if you have the military strength to protect it, and that leads to a circular argument that appears to land in favor of those wishing to acquire a nuclear weapon.
edited by rlaunius on 2/12/2013
edited by rlaunius on 2/12/2013
.
