Those in favor of widespread proliferation argue that an increase in nuclear weapons will lead to a reduction in conflict because: A. Irrational...

Widespread
nuclear proliferation has been a subject of intense debate, and this question gets to the center
of that argument. The idea of proliferation is encapsulated in the fact that people are more
likely to act in self-preservation than in rational thoughtparticularly when dealing with
dictators and irrational leaders, such as Kim Jong-Un.

Putting weaponry this
advanced into the hands of someone like Kim Jong-Un is dangerous, because no matter how secure
they feel, they will still be willing to attack other nations if they have a desire for that
country's resources, and therefore A is untrue.

While B is likely true, the
brevity of the ensuing wars is hardly a selling point for nuclear weapons, because it simply
means a quick and effective destruction.

Point C also has some plausibility,
but once again, irrational leaders will find ways to continue production and military efforts
regardless of funding.

The true reason behind the idea of mass proliferation
is the idea of a nuclear deterrent. The possibility of mutually assured destruction means that
there is a guarantee that any country that wages war with nuclear weapons will be summarily
destroyed. Therefore, nuclear weapons, by their very nature, deter other nations from using
them. By giving everyone the same power, we reduce the possibility that anyone will use it,
because it will open the door for it to be used swiftly against
themselves.