I suppose China, ISIS and American leftists are all strong proponents of civilian gun control and opposed to free speech.
Statistically, allowing psychopaths to hold nukes is certain death. The question isn't if, but when. Then your numbers will be in the billions of deaths.
So far only the US has used nukes in war and we only did it twice and they were little. Psychopaths generally like to be alive themselves. It's not a good tactical weapon either, you can't easily occupy the area after and the fallout can blow back on you. It's sort of a fools errand to try to suppress a 70+ year old technology. A lot of people go and join ISIS, in effect opting in, and people are trying to run into America even illegally, they seem to be opting in too right?
I think it would be great if I had enough slave labor that I could afford a few nukes to secure my plantation. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuclear weapon is a good guy with a nuclear weapon.
Meh, all this concern about nukes will seem silly after some college student engineers a z virus.
The reason extermination is certain is based upon the fact that perfection is mathematically impossible. So if you allow control they will eventually blow themselves up by miscalculation. It most likely won't end intentionally, but a political miscalculation is all it will take and given enough time, probability of extermination approaches certainty.
This principle of opting in is about legitimizing the control of government because it is through the consent of the governed that government has any legitimacy at all. However, nothing negates natural law (a concept you seem to be unfamiliar with). If I opt into ISIS, and do harm to another, then indeed because there is a victim, I'm liable for damages and am morally and ethically obligated to make the victim whole. Opting into something doesn't absolve personal responsibility. It in fact increases it.
But when one is forced in, then government cannot even hope to achieve legitimacy. Individual responsibility is therefore negated by the state and people eventually surrender all their rights, don’t know right from wrong, etc. That is a bad situation for government because eventually the corruption that inevitably results will just eat everyone alive. This is because it’s no longer possible to completely confront one’s own actions because they have lost sovereign control.
BTW, the above situation is related to the insanity defense; that one was out of their mind or does not have capacity to control their own actions. If one is not sovereign, then one’s capacity to act is diminished. Without it, full accountability cannot be accomplished and the end result is corruption.
The nuke example is just one of many that I used to show the potential abuse of state power. Take your pick. The only time any violence is excusable is in the interest of self defense. Every time an aggressor initiates violence for control, they not only do wrong, but they demonstrate the bankruptcy of their ideas. This goes for terrorists in all their various forms, whether they wear government costumes or not.
That's sort of like saying that a gun owner will eventually shoot themselves but the overwhelming majority never will and as the number of guns in America has increased the number of fatal accidents has declined. I think your equation is oversimplified. The failure mode for a nuclear weapon is not detonation is it not detonating.
So why are those ISIS guys not recompensing their victims? How come natural law didn't make them?
"natural law" is totally meaningless, you can't argue it in court. Natural law and a bus token will allow you to ride the bus.
Not only do we allow people to opt in to America, we also allow Americans to opt out of America.
Nukes are an example of state power making the whole world a more peaceful place.
Nukes are great, we should give Kim as many as he likes, why do you think he wants them?
He wants them to save money, they are cheaper than his massive conventional force.