Since the issue of nukes comes up from time to time and I was just listening to the audiobook of The Ethics of Liberty here's Rothbard's take on the matter;
It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. But a particularly libertarian reply is that while the bow and arrow, and even the rifle, can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even “conventional” aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification. This is why the old cliche no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. Indeed, of all the aspects of liberty, such disarmament becomes the highest political good that can be pursued in the modern world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny so mass murder—indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself—is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now all too possible. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price controls or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?
This is why the old cliche no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. Indeed, of all the aspects of liberty, such disarmament becomes the highest political good that can be pursued in the modern world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny so mass murder—indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself—is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now all too possible. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price controls or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?
He seems pretty anti-nuke with his "disarmament becomes the highest political good that can be pursued in the modern world" statement.
So it would seem under a natural rights ethic the possesion of nuclear bombs becomes an act of aggression in its own right and perhaps counter-aggression against the possessor would be justified.
Hmmm, that is interesting. I'd like to hear a take from the Rothbardians.
It depends on the context. Ownership of a nuclear weapon in an area where it cannot be used without aggression could be constituted as a valid threat. However, ownership of a nuke in an area where it could be used without negativly effecting others, such as in an uninhabited wilderness, or outer space, would probably be valid. The last point I find to be especially important: nukes will probably turn out to be useful tools for the exploration and exploitation of space (asteroid mining, Orion drives, etc.).
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Also, I think the yield of the weapon matters. There is a world of difference between a 1 kiloton tactical nuke and a 50 megaton city-buster.
As long as it is not being "aimed" at anyone it should be legal to own one. You cannot deprive nuclear weapons collectors of their rights.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
ChaseCola: As long as it is not being "aimed" at anyone it should be legal to own one. You cannot deprive nuclear weapons collectors of their rights.
But the idea is that having a nuclear weapon and storing it in, say, a crowded city is "aiming" it at someone. There is no possible way that the device could be used without harming others. I personally think the issue will be circumvented by insurance, though (having a nuke will give you HUGE premiums).
wombatron: ChaseCola: As long as it is not being "aimed" at anyone it should be legal to own one. You cannot deprive nuclear weapons collectors of their rights. But the idea is that having a nuclear weapon and storing it in, say, a crowded city is "aiming" it at someone. There is no possible way that the device could be used without harming others. I personally think the issue will be circumvented by insurance, though (having a nuke will give you HUGE premiums).
I agree, unless the holder of the weapon has clearly demonstrates the nuke is incapable of detonation, it is being "aimed".
edit: if you point a gun at my head you better have done a good job of proving that it is not loaded.
I agree that it is the will and not the weapon that should be illegal otherwise how are we going to have nuclear energy?
Although an owner of nuclear weapons could be the target of exclusion in order to punish his antisocial behavior, he could not be the target of retaliationary force until he actually committed any aggression against anyone. For all we know he is doing special types of mining and demolition.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
What about nukes being used as a deterrent in an anarchist society, say by insurance companies or PDAs, against a possible threat of invasion by statist neighbours? If Iraq had functioning nukes with a real delivery system, the US wouldn't have invaded them, for example.
Fred Furash: What about nukes being used as a deterrent in an anarchist society, say by insurance companies or PDAs, against a possible threat of invasion by statist neighbours? If Iraq had functioning nukes with a real delivery system, the US wouldn't have invaded them, for example.
Again, I would say it depends on the yield. A large-yield nuke has no real military purpose; it is a weapon for destroying cities and countryside. Using a large nuke would always involve aggression in a populated area, while a tactical nuke may not. Tactical nukes can be selectivly used against targets (say, a tank column, or an aircraft carrier), while strategic nukes cannot; that is the important distinction, mentioned by Rothbard.
To get to the point: ownership of small nukes in populated areas is valid (although would probably give you very high insurance premiums, limiting ownership to PDAs and perhaps local militias), but ownership of large nukes in populated areas is not. I would say that this is a case where the natural law has to be specified by the courts (what Aquinas called the "Human Law").
This Walter Block essay may clear things up a little: Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control