3 ms·

I disagree with selecting nuclear stewards. In as much as nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent to invasion and regime change, many countries will continue

I disagree with selecting nuclear stewards. In as much as nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent to invasion and regime change, many countries will continue to pursue it and will support my political leaders on such a course myself. It’s either we all give it up or we all have it. Why are some countries better stewards ? Some USA’s elected leaders are close to crazy to us from outside. And they came close to a coup not long ago. It’s almost the same for climate change. The developed countries knew of the impact of their emissions decades ago but continued to burn fossil fuel. The developing countries don’t have a choice; either burn fossils or they will forever be poor. The alternative are currently too expensive. It’s either nuclear power is democratized or people keep burning fossils.

PradeetPatel 5y ago
The benefit of individual nations will always triumph over collective interests, such is the nature of power politics in the 21st century. Climate change is a good example. It has been established that the rising sea level and bush fires proved to be challenges to many nations, but some developed nations see it as an unique opportunity to turn uninhabitable permafrost covered wasteland into arid soil that could be put to use. With national interests in mind, I strongly suspect the nuclear stewardship may be susceptible to abuse skin to the UN security Council.