nukes are to small countries as colt 45's are to small men.
I belive the colt was called the peacemaker.

I think Gary’s article makes some quite valid points. Consider how few (if any) nuclear-armed nations have been subject to military attack (on their own soil) since WW2. Nukes are the buttons that no-one wants to push, and it seems that most countries have developed them for the purpose of defence rather than attack. It is a defence that greatly reduces the chances of conventional attack, making it more or less effective on that front - but at the cost that it is self-proliferating. And as we have seen, WMDs can also cause ‘preventative’ conflict - even in their (apparent) absence.

Unfortunately, history has shown that there are people who are willing to use their nukes (and not just eastern dictators) - even for attack and not defence; mass-death and destruction is not unthinkable to everyone. The law of patriotism implies that people X are worth more than the people Y, and this is *almost* universal. It is usually portrayed as honourable ("Dulce et decorum est..."), but is it not somewhere near the source of most conflict – pride/self-centredness? Unfortunately, two of the best deterrents, compassion and humility, are not prerequisites for nuclear armament.

On disarmament... what nation has ever chosen vulnerability, except in exchange for some significant reward or reduction in threat (even in surrender)? Hence the need for mutual disarmament and diplomacy... but how to deal with states that want power more than peace? England appeased the Nazis and allowed them power, The Coalition pre-empted Iraq and took their power...but both saw war. Is there a way around the WMD problem, neither proud nor appeasing, that avoids violence-preventing violence? To remove the arms and the tension but maintain the lack-of-war? I think compassion and empathy (even for the ‘tyrant’) are necessary... why kill people to prevent them doing something they weren’t going to do anyway? And is their armament a means to power, self-defence, or a voice? Listening is required, and honesty. But it is still so complex, and perhaps not soluble just with rational logic.

Will David surrender his sling while Goliath still stands, armed?

Today's Goliath has more and better slings, clubs, and all manner of conventional armaments than all the Davids combined. His conventional weapons are sufficient to lay low any opposition.
So why the hell does he insist on waving the nuclear club about as well?