I've got an idea

[MaC]

and I think it's pretty sound right now, but please criticise the hell out of it if it needs.  This idea even to myself sounds pretty naive so I welcome anyone else pointing out bad parts of it.

Pretty much this.  The idea of self-defense is one that I've long advocated, that people should be able to have a gun if they want to-and the nobody should be denied this.  If an aggressor knows or suspects a potential victim has a gun then they are less likely to violate the potential victim out of fear of death.

This said, why can't we do this on a macro-level?  Why can't we give every country nukes?

If every country in the world had nukes, the world would be safer because the fear of someone actually using a nuke would be enough fear to prevent a country from going to war.  Ever since the cold war, the United States will only go to war with a country that doesn't have the military or nuclear capacity to return the fire.  I figure every country can keep the others in check, now knowing that there's potential to use nukes.  Consequently, peace and diplomacy would be used more often under that fear of the alternative-getting bombed.

[MaC]

Sorry M&C but I think you need a little disclaimer here. "The views expressed here are the views of M&C alone and do not represent the views of the Libertarian party."

not even that much, I thought it sounded good at first, but knew that there was something wrong with it.  I guess it does boil down to having unreasonable rulers who would fire nukes at a country without caring if their own country blows up.

[MaC]

Here's an idea, how 'bout no one has nukes?

I really wouldn't mind that-in fact it would be highly preferable.  However, since they exist-evening the playing field would seem like the better alternative--at least sometimes...