Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump once suggested that more, not fewer, countries be given nuclear weapons including Japan, South Korea and even Saudi Arabia. Although his suggestion met with widespread criticism, one organization seems to be in line with The Donald's thinking.
We are the International Rifle Association otherwise known as the IRA, not to be confused with that other IRA, the Irish Republican Army, although, in general, we think they're a swell bunch of guys, too.
No, we're more in line with the NRA, the National Rifle Association, except we have a global vision. Just like the NRA wants to see fewer restrictions on guns throughout the United States, we want to see fewer restrictions on weapons worldwide.
We agree with the NRA that the widest interpretation of the Second Amendment is in the best interests of everyone. Likewise, we are of the view that there is no reason to restrict the right of any nation state to own and use whatever weapons it likes.
The logic relied on by the NRA in support of their position is, if you'll pardon the expression, bulletproof. Just as gun ownership is the best deterrent against crime, large scale weapon ownership is the best guarantee against outright war.
We here at the IRA strongly believe that the only thing that can stop a bad country with a nuke is a good country with a nuke. For example, if Iran has a nuclear weapon, it's not likely going to use it on the U. S. knowing full well that the U.S. will retaliate tenfold.
For those liberal whiners who think this will spell disaster, just take a look at India and Pakistan. Two countries who were at one another's throats for years with ongoing border battles and skirmishes now hardly engage militarily at all. Why? Because both now have nuclear weapons. They might not like each other but neither dares risk starting a war which might result in the destruction of both states.
But what about rogue states we hear liberal nuke control wusses saying all the time. Well, what about them? Just like the NRA, we say that the more countries that have nukes, the safer we'll all be. Just as gun-friendly folks contend that teachers in schools should be given guns, so, too, should countries bordering unstable states be fully armed. Sure there might be some collateral damage if nuclear war breaks out but it will definitely be a lot less than if such states can't be stopped.
As the NRA contends, guns don't kill people; people kill people. Same thing internationally. Nuclear weapons don't annihilate states; states annihilate states.
Liberals long for the day when nuclear weapons are eliminated, when no nation, not even the United States, has nuclear capability. Bad idea. To borrow another truism from our NRA allies, if nuclear weapons are outlawed, then only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.
Remember the Cold War or what we here at the IRA like to call the good old days? Some folks worried about nuclear attacks but those in the know felt completely secure in view of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. The best defense against a country with a nuke is your country with a bigger nuke.
That's why we recommend that this matter be taken to the United Nations and urge them to pass a resolution modeled on the Second Amendment as in: "The national right to keep and bear weapons of any kind shall not be infringed."
Once we're all armed to the teeth, peace can reign throughout the world. At least that's the plan.
Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on FacebookSuggest a correction