Eyewitness to History

[Chaerophon]

If your argument that is that a unipolar atmosphere of international relations is somehow desirable, I would have to disagree. If the power truly has desires to act as a universally benevolent entity, that is one thing. The fact is, that's not how members of the international community function, and we have to live with it. To generalize that "a world in which only one power exists in dominance over all other nations" seems remarkably naive given the fact that I highly doubt that you would be as supportive of this statement if that superpower was of communist or facist origins. Similarly, your argument would seem to see benefits in only one nation possessing nuclear weapons etc. Essentially, under that theoretical example, that nation would be capable of strongarming the lesser nations of the world into submission. In fact, I would argue that, while the US does a fairly good job of doing so as it is, the fact that other nations of the world possess nuclear arms has done much to retain some of the quasi-democratic processes of the international world and serves to restrict their power to a reasonable degree.

While I would certainly agree with the majority of the members on this board that, compared with their potential clout, the Americans are relatively benevolent, if they were granted true unilateral power as the sole possesser of nuclear arms, it would make them frightfully capable (I'm certainly not making the point that they would be so at this time) of tyrannical dominance over the international scene and this would not be a desireable outcome for any nation who desires a say in international affairs as it would represent a serious hindrance of the moderate, democratic process that I deem necessary for a maintenance of international peace and solidarity.