I question your sanity.
The question at hand was whether the U.S. had a right to prohibit other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons - not whether it is in our national interests to do everything in our power to prevent them from doing so.
As I wrote:
We have no logical arguments, and must therefore use persuasion and - if necessary - force to prevent certain countries from coming into possession of nuclear weapons.
So I am certainly not in favor of rogue states, failed states, or what have you, of getting their hands on nukes. On the contrary, I am very much in favor of our using even "dirty tricks" (covert tactics, the assassination of rogue leaders, etc.) in order to achieve such aims.
I merely maintain that it cannot be argued with Aristotelean logic that we, indeed, possess any objective right to dictate to other countries how they should stock their arsenals.
I admit that the argument is a subtle one, but I trust you to understand the difference I am trying to make.
Regards,
In the case of Israel it is a needed self defense mechanism.
The U.S. has objected to the likes of Syria, Iran,Iraq, NK, Libya, and a couple of others from aquiring the technical capabilities, however we have failed on a massive scale from preventing some of them.
Libiya gave them up in fear of being pounded into glass by Reagan, now we have a weakling for a President, a society that doesn't understand the danger, and a LOT of countries that don't like us.
By literally giving other countries a pass on development of weapons grade materials, you create the ability to use that new power.
Governments change, sometimes by force, a lot of times by subtlety. In either case the danger, such as the volatility of a Pakistan, can destroy us all.
As the leaders of the free world, with a society unlike any in history, and with so many who want what we have, and those who hate us for it, we SHOULD dictate .
For the sake of us all.