[Samildanach]

So what you are saying Sam, is that you want all CURRENTLY existing nations to have nukes, so that the map stays exactly the same.

What would be so bad with that? If anything it would cause the US to start to concentrate on internal problems along with just about any other nation that keeps a standing army....over time armies would be reduced to purely covert ops forces driving things like cloaking and stealth technology...and possibly a lot of the military budget would be put into research and aerospace technologies.

If every country had nukes everybody is forced to concentrate more on their internal affairs and stop interfering in everyone elses. Effectively negotiation becomes the primary form of conflict resolution.

also if I remember correctly Osborn you are a gun supporter...(could be wrong) but if you are then surely a lot of the arguments about being able to own a gun apply to countries with nukes....the interesting bit is I don't actually believe guns ensure peace when millions of individuals own them ( there is just too much of a chance some psycho will get one) but with countries I reverse my position and say yes it does work because there are roughly 192 countries on the planet. I would even trust gun control with that number of people.

I disagree with that. All nations develop and have internal strife as a natural progression of advancement or "domestication" of society. Most of the arguments in the Middle East for example, are over lines on the map that weren't even drawn by them, or agreed to by them. If it weren't for FOREIGN intervention, these people would have settled this THEMSELVES, as all other nations should.

Yes note the Internal bit. As for the middle east lines...the longer the amount of time they are held for the more and not challenged the more they will become solid boundaries.