Either all nuclear weapons should be eliminated (unrealistic), or more countries should have them. The current system is a handful of countries imposing and maintaining an unfair advantage over everybody else.
The implications of proliferation are much much more serious than the situation we have now.
If we take the Iranian example, affording Iran nuclear weapons is, in constructivist terms, allowing it to take the mantle it claims for itself as a regional great power, and militarily it allows it to have an insurance policy when attacking. Now I'm not saying the Iranian leadership are as crackpot as the US and Israel right-wing makes out, but turning it into a nuclear power emboldens it considerably as a regional player and then leaves the door open to its proxies acquiring them too...after that who knows what's on the agenda.
Proliferation means an exponential function of nuclear arms being made and sold, potentially on the black market. When Iran gets one, KSA needs one (see India-Pakistan). When NK gets one, SK needs one. Put the US and the neo-cons (and the military industrial fanaticism in building nukes to rip the taxpayer off) to one side...we can still avoid such proliferation by maintaining the status quo.
The real question is...why is the US's department for disarmament of all this expensive hardware only consisting of like 4 people these days? Just get Putin round the table and start talking about reducing the arms race in light of Corona.
