UK Party Leadership contests

[His Divine Shadow]

http://theleveller.org/2015/09/british-really-laughing/

Outsiders to the British cultural landscape are focusing on the central detail that a leader of a G8 country screwed a dead pig, because it’s hilarious. But the howling laughter of the British themselves goes deeper than just schadenfreude at a man doing something disgusting and getting caught – this is about class.

When Cameron was at Oxford, he was a member of several secret societies of rich young men. The most famous of these is the Bullingdon Club, after which Yale’s infamous Skull and Bones is fashioned. The aim of the Bullingdon Club is ostensibly to dress up fancy with the chaps, get blind drunk at an expensive restaurant or private dining room, and trash the place – because they can afford to pay for the damages without doing a day’s work. Among their known initiation rites, they are said to have to burn a £50 bill in front of a homeless person.

And that leads to the other side of what the Bullingdon Club (and societies like it) is about: upper class right wing team-building. The friendships and alliances forged in the secret drinking societies of powerful rich kids go on to define their careers, and these young men all have access to the highest rungs of British society. Three prominent members of Cameron’s cabinet were members, whilst many others went on to run the banks that crashed the economy in 2008 and the media empires that protect them.

Our betters.

[Thanas]

I have to thank the PM for allowing me to use "the pigfucking UK" as a perfect replacement for "perfidious albion".

[Titan Uranus]

Romulan Republic; look at the Ukraine. They signed treaties with both the US and the Russian Federation guaranteeing their independence. In exchange for this they gave up their 5,000 nuclear weapons. Can you honestly say, in hindsight that this was a good decision?
Do you honestly believe that the Ukraine would be getting bits of it sliced off by Russia if it had kept even a small fraction if it's nuclear weapons?

Even a few dozen nuclear weapons guarantee that a nation cannot be invaded successfully, they make it either politically or practically impossible to do so. No matter how terrified you are of the devices, no matter how much you might wish for wars amongst the great powers to be more common you must admit that it is in each nation's narrow interest to have some of the devices and the means to deliver them.

This lesson is projected as clear as day by what has happened in the Ukraine, do you draw a different lesson from mine?

[jwl]

If Ukraine had Britain's lot of conventional weapons I doubt it would be having bits sliced off it by Russia either. Just saying.

[Titan Uranus]

If Ukraine had Britain's lot of conventional weapons I doubt it would be having bits sliced off it by Russia either. Just saying.

Why?

It would be far smaller than the forces that actually existed and still wildly inferior to the Russian Armed Forces by every objective measure, with a longer mobilization time than the Ukrainian army, all while having smaller stockpiles and less ability to sustain itself with the industry within the country.

It would in point of fact have changed nothing, if anything it would have been worse.

The UK is not a strong nation militarily speaking, and it has not been strong for decades.

[jwl]

If Ukraine had Britain's lot of conventional weapons I doubt it would be having bits sliced off it by Russia either. Just saying.

Why?

It would be far smaller than the forces that actually existed and still wildly inferior to the Russian Armed Forces by every objective measure, with a longer mobilization time than the Ukrainian army, all while having smaller stockpiles and less ability to sustain itself with the industry within the country.

It would in point of fact have changed nothing, if anything it would have been worse.

The UK is not a strong nation militarily speaking, and it has not been strong for decades.

Ukraine has a better military than Britain? Cool story bro. http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

[The Romulan Republic]

Romulan Republic; look at the Ukraine. They signed treaties with both the US and the Russian Federation guaranteeing their independence. In exchange for this they gave up their 5,000 nuclear weapons. Can you honestly say, in hindsight that this was a good decision?

I'm not familiar enough with the circumstances at the time to really judge.

Obviously, they might have gained some protection if they had nuclear weapons now (or the situation might have degenerated into a nuclear exchange), but they didn't have the benefit of hindsight when making the decision to give them up.

In any case, Ukraine is not Britain. What applies for one country will not necessarily apply to another.

Are you arguing that every nation on Earth must have nuclear weapons? Like I said, I'm in Canada, we don't have them, and we're doing just fucking fine without them.

Do you honestly believe that the Ukraine would be getting bits of it sliced off by Russia if it had kept even a small fraction if it's nuclear weapons?

Probably it wouldn't.

See above regarding relevance or lack thereof.

Even a few dozen nuclear weapons guarantee that a nation cannot be invaded successfully, they make it either politically or practically impossible to do so. No matter how terrified you are of the devices,

Yeah, devices that could destroy modern civilization scare me. No shame in that.

Its also virtually irrelevant to the question of weather Britain or anyone else needs them.

no matter how much you might wish for wars amongst the great powers to be more common

If that is a position you are trying to attribute to me, it is a disgusting and cowardly straw man.

you must admit that it is in each nation's narrow interest to have some of the devices and the means to deliver them.

No.

The idea that every single nation on Earth should have nuclear weapons, regardless of their circumstances, and that this is so obvious that I can't dare to question it, is ridiculous.

Especially since, while we can mostly trust the great powers not to toss them off willie-nilley, if every unstable little dictatorship or failed state has them, it'll greatly increase the risk of them being acquired by someone nuts enough or desperate enough to use them.

If, for example, Iraq or Syria had had them, they might well have been acquired by ISIS. Isn't that a lovely thought?

This lesson is projected as clear as day by what has happened in the Ukraine, do you draw a different lesson from mine?

I don't presume that what happened to Ukraine applies to every country in every situation. I'm not that arrogant.

[Vendetta]

http://theleveller.org/2015/09/british-really-laughing/

Outsiders to the British cultural landscape are focusing on the central detail that a leader of a G8 country screwed a dead pig, because it’s hilarious. But the howling laughter of the British themselves goes deeper than just schadenfreude at a man doing something disgusting and getting caught – this is about class.

When Cameron was at Oxford, he was a member of several secret societies of rich young men. The most famous of these is the Bullingdon Club, after which Yale’s infamous Skull and Bones is fashioned. The aim of the Bullingdon Club is ostensibly to dress up fancy with the chaps, get blind drunk at an expensive restaurant or private dining room, and trash the place – because they can afford to pay for the damages without doing a day’s work. Among their known initiation rites, they are said to have to burn a £50 bill in front of a homeless person.

And that leads to the other side of what the Bullingdon Club (and societies like it) is about: upper class right wing team-building. The friendships and alliances forged in the secret drinking societies of powerful rich kids go on to define their careers, and these young men all have access to the highest rungs of British society. Three prominent members of Cameron’s cabinet were members, whilst many others went on to run the banks that crashed the economy in 2008 and the media empires that protect them.

Our betters.

Nobody's surprised, he's been doing it to the electorate for five years already.

[jwl]

Look, if you want to continue going on about this dead pig story go and make a new thread for it. This thread is about Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron, not David Cameron, and I think avoiding tabloid BS would be preferable here regardless.

[Titan Uranus]

If Ukraine had Britain's lot of conventional weapons I doubt it would be having bits sliced off it by Russia either. Just saying.

Why?

It would be far smaller than the forces that actually existed and still wildly inferior to the Russian Armed Forces by every objective measure, with a longer mobilization time than the Ukrainian army, all while having smaller stockpiles and less ability to sustain itself with the industry within the country.

It would in point of fact have changed nothing, if anything it would have been worse.

The UK is not a strong nation militarily speaking, and it has not been strong for decades.

Ukraine has a better military than Britain? Cool story bro. http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

None of what I said is contradicted by your source. The raw, mobilized strength of all branches of the two militaries is irrelevant to what I said which was that the British Army and Air Force (for those are the relevant branches) would take longer to mobilize (thus they would be unable to defend Crimea) and would be even less able to sustain a prolonged campaign than the Ukraine (because the British armed forces stockpiles are not up to it, and British arms industry has far too small a capacity for a long campaign). Do you have evidence that contradicts either of these points?

I'm not familiar enough with the circumstances at the time to really judge.

Obviously, they might have gained some protection if they had nuclear weapons now (or the situation might have degenerated into a nuclear exchange), but they didn't have the benefit of hindsight when making the decision to give them up.

No, they did not have the benefit of hindsight, but we do. The Ukrainians trusted their security to foreign powers and found that these foreign powers considered them nothing more than pawns in the Great Game Mark Two. If they had kept even a handful of their weapons and delivery systems Russia would never have dared to take Crimea because even the slightest risk of retaliation would have outweighed any economic or political benefit from taking Crimea.

In any case, Ukraine is not Britain. What applies for one country will not necessarily apply to another.

It is not it that situation now, but because of the timescales involved replacing their weapons will guarantee that king of situation will not develop for the next 30 years or more after the system is developed. Unless the system is rendered obsolete.

Are you arguing that every nation on Earth must have nuclear weapons? Like I said, I'm in Canada, we don't have them, and we're doing just fucking fine without them.

No, I am arguing that it is in each nation's individual interest to acquire them, or to gain the favor of a nuclear power.

Yeah, devices that could destroy modern civilization scare me. No shame in that.

Its also virtually irrelevant to the question of weather Britain or anyone else needs them.

If that is a position you are trying to attribute to me, it is a disgusting and cowardly straw man.

I listed them because there are precious few reasons to oppose the ownership of nuclear weapons by nation-states, a desperate terror is one, a support general war is another. I never for a second thought that you were anything other than fearful, because all other reasons that I am aware of require a certain form of ruthlessness that you appear to be incapable of.

No.

The idea that every single nation on Earth should have nuclear weapons, regardless of their circumstances, and that this is so obvious that I can't dare to question it, is ridiculous.

Oh? In what situation does the ownership of nuclear weapons run contrary to the national interest of the nation owning them? With the exception of development and maintenance costs, which I will readily agree can in some cases contravene the national interest if they are large enough.

Especially since, while we can mostly trust the great powers not to toss them off willie-nilley, if every unstable little dictatorship or failed state has them, it'll greatly increase the risk of them being acquired by someone nuts enough or desperate enough to use them.

Read what I said again, I said nothing about the interests of the world at large, only about the interests of the nation in question.
Also the Norks have had nuclear weapons for some time now, and they are a cult with a country that is getting poorer all the time.

If, for example, Iraq or Syria had had them, they might well have been acquired by ISIS. Isn't that a lovely thought?

No, they would have been displaced to other areas within the nation. Ignoring, of course the fact that the possession of nuclear weapons by those states would have prevented them from becoming failed states. Iraq would never have been invaded in the first place, and both states would be receiving far more support form the rest of the world. Or do you think that Turkey, Iran, and Israel would not object to ISIS gaining nukes even if no one else did?

[The Romulan Republic]

No, they did not have the benefit of hindsight, but we do.

Just because it worked out badly for the Ukrainians does not mean that that was inevitable or that it will always be the same for all countries.

The Ukrainians trusted their security to foreign powers and found that these foreign powers considered them nothing more than pawns in the Great Game Mark Two. If they had kept even a handful of their weapons and delivery systems Russia would never have dared to take Crimea because even the slightest risk of retaliation would have outweighed any economic or political benefit from taking Crimea.

Or Putin is more nuts than you think. Yeah, I doubt he'd fight a war with a nuclear-armed state, but you never know. In any case, you seem awfully certain about what would have happened in a hypothetical universe that has never existed and will never exist.

It is not it that situation now, but because of the timescales involved replacing their weapons will guarantee that king of situation will not develop for the next 30 years or more after the system is developed. Unless the system is rendered obsolete.

That last bit is an interesting point. I've read a lot about air/missile defence technology developing lately. Is it possible that nukes will be rendered, if not entirely useless, at least not cost-effective for a small nation in the fairly near future?

No, I am arguing that it is in each nation's individual interest to acquire them, or to gain the favor of a nuclear power.

Except you are arguing that everyone should have them, and that other nations cannot be relied upon to protect you. That's about half the fucking point of this discussion.

I listed them because there are precious few reasons to oppose the ownership of nuclear weapons by nation-states, a desperate terror is one, a support general war is another. I never for a second thought that you were anything other than fearful, because all other reasons that I am aware of require a certain form of ruthlessness that you appear to be incapable of.

Leaving aside your insinuation that I am a coward (which frankly I cannot dispute, but that does not invalidate the practical arguments I have made against nuclear weapons), I should damn well hope I lack the ability to be ruthless enough to support global warfare in any but the most dire circumstances (which, thankfully, do not exist). So I'll take that last comment as a compliment, though I doubt it was meant as one.

Oh? In what situation does the ownership of nuclear weapons run contrary to the national interest of the nation owning them?

That sounds like believing all nations should have nuclear weapons.

With the exception of development and maintenance costs, which I will readily agree can in some cases contravene the national interest if they are large enough.

Which is one of the arguments (though by no means the only one) I have against Britain using them.

Read what I said again, I said nothing about the interests of the world at large, only about the interests of the nation in question.

So "Fuck everyone else?" That's the position you're so smugly defending?

Anyway, I fail to see how the possibility of nutballs getting nuclear weapons is in any nation's interest.

Also the Norks have had nuclear weapons for some time now, and they are a cult with a country that is getting poorer all the time.

Yeah, and probably that's going to explode one of these days (and very nearly has already), to the great grief of millions of innocent people.

I mean, it takes a certain audacity to look at North Korea and use it as an argument for nuclear proliferation, though I can see a twisted logic to it.

No, they would have been displaced to other areas within the nation. Ignoring, of course the fact that the possession of nuclear weapons by those states would have prevented them from becoming failed states. Iraq would never have been invaded in the first place, and both states would be receiving far more support form the rest of the world. Or do you think that Turkey, Iran, and Israel would not object to ISIS gaining nukes even if no one else did?

So if Iraq and Syria had them, their would be more foreign intervention in Iraq and Syria to keep ISIS from gaining them? Perhaps, but a lot of people may not consider that I good thing. Even I, who support some intervention, have misgivings about it.

Also, are you so confident that having nuclear weapons would have kept Iraq safe from attack? Wasn't a major reason Bush gave for attacking them that they had WMDs? Maybe he knew better, but I wouldn't presume that a small number of nuclear weapons will necessarily prevent an attack by a determined foe.

Lastly, how the fuck would having nuclear weapons have kept Syria from falling apart? More outside aid? I don't know. Their's been quite a bit already, but it hasn't all been going to one side. Are you assuming a consensus where everyone backs Assad because he has nukes? That's possible, but it also shows the flip side of the coin- that having nukes can give a very evil man carte blanche, effective invulnerability.

Unless you wish to suggest that Assad would have won by using nukes on his own people, which may very well be true but is hardly an argument for him having them.

You seem to think nukes are a solution for everyone. People criticize my understanding of foreign policy, but your's is that of a simpleton. Its like "Me have big gun, so me safe", and that's it. I think you can argue that their is a place for nukes, as much as I'm uncomfortable acknowledging that, but they are damn well not a cure all, nor needed by every nation.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would also add that with regards to your apparent assertion that Iraq and Syria would not have allowed their nukes to fall into ISIS's hands, I believe you have far more confidence in the competency of their governments and militaries than I do or than is warranted by the situation.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, you seriously think that the US would have still attacked Iraq even if it was a nuclear power with a small nuclear arsenal? You do understand how crazy this sounds, right? Nobody has ever deeply invaded and attempted to fully conquer a real nuclear power, no matter how small the arsenal. That is why small wars between nuclear powers quickly fizzle out - way before risk rises to a point where the use of nuclear weapons cannot be excluded, and this has happened several times in recent history.

If, indeed, most nations had nuclear weapons, one could assume that wars could not progress beyond border skirmishes precisely because of the rising risk factor of which everyone is fully aware.

The idea of relying on other nations for protection has had numerous examples of failure in the past, post-Soviet wars like Ukraine being only the latest in a string of examples.

The factually established circumstances, in which any type of international policy is made, are very easy to understand: in the very long term, even nations themselves are temporary constructs (just look at how the world map has been redrawn time and again) and two, the status of great power and relations between major powers change much faster than national borders. Friend-to-foe cycle often takes less than 50 years. This is a lot less than the timeframe of state collapse (that sometimes takes 200-300 years, and sometimes states can last for half a century with periodic internal revolutions that modernize their political structure but keep the national bordes more or less intact).

Therefore, it is desireable to have nuclear weapons. International policing is ineffective and in any case represents a rule of the strong (established major nuclear powers), and as such cannot be relied on by any small independent nation. Relying on power blocs alone has been a recipe for failure since the beginning of national coalition wars where some states were devastated while others reaped all the benefits in the aftermath of a conventional conflict.

[Thanas]

Look, if you want to continue going on about this dead pig story go and make a new thread for it. This thread is about Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron, not David Cameron, and I think avoiding tabloid BS would be preferable here regardless.

Who died and made you mod?

[jwl]

Look, if you want to continue going on about this dead pig story go and make a new thread for it. This thread is about Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron, not David Cameron, and I think avoiding tabloid BS would be preferable here regardless.

Who died and made you mod?

I was hoping people would respect the wishes of the thread maker (i.e. me) rather than requiring moderators or whatever. So far it's worked.

Anyway, Pital, do you really like the idea of Hussain and Assad having nukes? Both have shown they are not averse to using chemical weapons.

[K. A. Pital]

So what? Pakistan has nukes, and by any account its regime was a poor autocratic shithole governed by an Islamist military junta complicit in genocide during the operations in separatist Bangladesh. Meanwhile Western governments had no problem with Pakistan becoming a nuclear power. The US sold chemical and bioweapons to Hussein. Apparently this was not a problem while they killed who the West told them to kill, and only became a problem when they started doing what went against Western interests.

Either you think other nations should be policed by a club of the strong or you admit that even nations and regimes you dislike deserve a right to nuclear deterrent, which is my position. I dislike Britain, but I think it should keep its deterrent in place.

[His Divine Shadow]

Maybe if Saddam had nukes the US wouldn't have dared invade, and we'd have a much stabler middle east today. Hmmm.

[The Romulan Republic]

Wait, you seriously think that the US would have still attacked Iraq even if it was a nuclear power with a small nuclear arsenal?

Not really. I'm not asserting that they definitely would have. I simply considered it as a theoretical possibility.

You do understand how crazy this sounds, right? Nobody has ever deeply invaded and attempted to fully conquer a real nuclear power, no matter how small the arsenal. That is why small wars between nuclear powers quickly fizzle out - way before risk rises to a point where the use of nuclear weapons cannot be excluded, and this has happened several times in recent history.

The fact that you have to add the disclaimers/caveats to "...deeply invaded and attempted to fully conquer..." shows that nuclear weapons are not a full-proof means of preventing conflict.

Personally, I think we're profoundly lucky no conflict has escalated to the point of using nuclear weapons and that no one with the power to do so has been nuts enough to go that far.

If, indeed, most nations had nuclear weapons, one could assume that wars could not progress beyond border skirmishes precisely because of the rising risk factor of which everyone is fully aware.

Right up until someone is nuts enough to push it that far. Or someone screws up and we get an accidental launch. Or things escalate out of control.

Essentially, you are asserting that with everyone having nukes their will never be a major war, but what you're actually doing is perpetually gambling that we'll get lucky every fucking time.

However, none of this really addresses the original issue of weather Britain needs nuclear weapons, considering that it has solid friendships/alliances to protect it without them.

The idea of relying on other nations for protection has had numerous examples of failure in the past, post-Soviet wars like Ukraine being only the latest in a string of examples.

Again, what is true for one country is not necessarily true for another.

Look at Britain specifically and tell me why they need nuclear weapons, not why you feel the Ukraine or anyone else needed them. Feel free to use historical examples if you have any that are reasonably analogous to Britain today.

The factually established circumstances, in which any type of international policy is made, are very easy to understand: in the very long term, even nations themselves are temporary constructs (just look at how the world map has been redrawn time and again)

Technically, "nation" and "country" are not the same thing. A nation can exist without borders, as I recall.

However, you are correct that national borders are often transient.

and two, the status of great power and relations between major powers change much faster than national borders. Friend-to-foe cycle often takes less than 50 years. This is a lot less than the timeframe of state collapse (that sometimes takes 200-300 years, and sometimes states can last for half a century with periodic internal revolutions that modernize their political structure but keep the national bordes more or less intact).

Partially true, though I think you're overgeneralizing.

Therefore, it is desireable to have nuclear weapons.

That depends upon an assumption, it seems to me, that nuclear weapons are both a reliable means of preventing state collapse/change in borders and the only reliable means of doing so. A contention that I feel is thoroughly unproven, and in fact disproven by various factors (most notably the collapse of the Soviet Union).

International policing is ineffective and in any case represents a rule of the strong (established major nuclear powers), and as such cannot be relied on by any small independent nation. Relying on power blocs alone has been a recipe for failure since the beginning of national coalition wars where some states were devastated while others reaped all the benefits in the aftermath of a conventional conflict.

Maybe so, though I think Britain is in a better position than many in these fields.

This does not convince me that nuclear weapons are inherently more effective, much less that they are the only effective method for all nations- a contention I don't think anyone has adequately proven.

Edited to fix quotes.

[Titan Uranus]

Just because it worked out badly for the Ukrainians does not mean that that was inevitable or that it will always be the same for all countries.

Or Putin is more nuts than you think. Yeah, I doubt he'd fight a war with a nuclear-armed state, but you never know. In any case, you seem awfully certain about what would have happened in a hypothetical universe that has never existed and will never exist.

Yes, I am. Putin may be self-interested, he may be (or at least plays the role of) a full-throated nationalist, but he is not insane. Five thousand missiles the Ukrainians had, if they had kept just one tenth of that number, it would be enough to pierce the Moscow ABM and destroy every major city in European Russia, while still leaving enough left over to destroy any Russian divisions moving to take vengeance. If they had kept one hundredth of that number, it would have been enough to destroy half a dozen western and southern Russian cities outside of the Moscow ABM's defensive zone. Putin would almost certainly lose power, which if he is purely motivated by self-interest would be anathema to him. If on the other had, he has even the palest sliver of nationalism in his veins, then he will have ruined most of his country, destroyed any chance for it to remain a great power, and he would have done it all for nothing! The only reason you could possibly think that this would happen is if you think that he, and a large percentage of his officer corps and high officials are genuinely insane.

That last bit is an interesting point. I've read a lot about air/missile defense technology developing lately. Is it possible that nukes will be rendered, if not entirely useless, at least not cost-effective for a small nation in the fairly near future?

Yes, the capability for a useful missile shield has existed for five decades, and will only get better. If we start to see missile-based defenses proliferate then all the current weapons excepting bombers will become dramatically less useful. If laser-based systems proliferate then ground-hugging systems will become the most useful (ie., bombers and cruise missiles), unless means can be found to harden missiles. The now gone nuclear artillery, demo charges, land mines, etc would have been unaffected, but I don't think you would see a Renaissance of those sorts of technologies. Ask Seaskimmer if you want to know more.

Except you are arguing that everyone should have them, and that other nations cannot be relied upon to protect you. That's about half the fucking point of this discussion.

Well, you are close to being right. I am arguing that it is in each nation's individual interest is served by having nuclear weapons. In point of fact, I do not want every nation to have nuclear weapons, I would very much prefer only my nation to have nuclear weapons. In addition, each new nuclear power diminishes my nation's power, as it adds yet another nation which we are bound to respect.

Of course I am arguing that a nation cannot rely upon others to protect it. To do so is to throw oneself upon the generosity of others, and while I would never support abandoning any of our first world allies, I cannot say the same for my countrymen. For a nation to place it's existence at the mercy of uninterested parties is foolishness, you cannot guarantee that a treaty signed today will be followed tomorrow, or ten years from now, or a hundred years from now.
We live in an estuary in time, one where great powers as a rule do not fight one another. If you know anything about history, you will know that this is profoundly strange. An it is because of two things; low birth rates and nuclear weapons. To support the nuclear disarmament of your nation is to gamble that either there will never be war again, or that there will always be someone else strong enough and willing enough to protect you. And all of this in addition to removing your nation from the list of nations that must always be reckoned with.

Leaving aside your insinuation that I am a coward (which frankly I cannot dispute, but that does not invalidate the practical arguments I have made against nuclear weapons), I should damn well hope I lack the ability to be ruthless enough to support global warfare in any but the most dire circumstances (which, thankfully, do not exist). So I'll take that last comment as a compliment, though I doubt it was meant as one.

The ruthlessness comment was neither a compliment nor a disparagement, merely an observation, which was apparently accurate.

Your practical arguments against me are based either upon missing the point, or simple fear.

That sounds like believing all nations should have nuclear weapons.

No, read again.

Oh? In what situation does the ownership of nuclear weapons run contrary to the national interest of the nation owning them?

Which is one of the arguments (though by no means the only one) I have against Britain using them.

If you actually want to argue that, then I will have to bring up economic data, are you actually willing to debate upon that point?

So "Fuck everyone else?" That's the position you're so smugly defending?

Anyway, I fail to see how the possibility of nutballs getting nuclear weapons is in any nation's interest.

No, it is about making certain that your nation is free and unmolested. It is about making certain that it must be reckoned with and cannot be so easily imposed upon by others, not simply by open force or by it's threat, but by treaty as well.

Yeah, and probably that's going to explode one of these days (and very nearly has already), to the great grief of millions of innocent people.

I mean, it takes a certain audacity to look at North Korea and use it as an argument for nuclear proliferation, though I can see a twisted logic to it.

Here, let's take a bet on it, I will bet you 40 US dollars, adjusted for inflation, that North Korea will not fire it's nuclear weapons in anger within our lifetimes.

North Korea is the most theocratic nation on the face of the globe, they are a cult with a country, their ideology is centered around the future conquest of South Korea, they are a famine state in which million have dies, they are a garrison state with stunted soldiers, and they have a God-king!
And yet, for all that, they can be relied upon to never use their nuclear weapons, merely to threaten their use in exchange for food

So if Iraq and Syria had them, there would be more foreign intervention in Iraq and Syria to keep ISIS from gaining them? Perhaps, but a lot of people may not consider that I good thing. Even I, who support some intervention, have misgivings about it.

If they had had them, then Iraq and Syria would never have been in this situation in the first place. In addition, the surrounding states with useful militaries would have moved in with the blessing of the government to secure and remove the nuclear weapons.

Also, are you so confident that having nuclear weapons would have kept Iraq safe from attack? Wasn't a major reason Bush gave for attacking them that they had WMDs? Maybe he knew better, but I wouldn't presume that a small number of nuclear weapons will necessarily prevent an attack by a determined foe.

Yes, I am confident, Bush's casus belli was the lie that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons. His actual reasons are not entirely known, but we know that he knew that Saddam was not developing nuclear weapons.

If Bush had invaded Iraq while it was in possession of nuclear weapons, then the result would have been, at the very least, the incineration of tens of thousands of American soldiers (or at least I hope so). He would have been impeached if he was not lynched.

Lastly, how the fuck would having nuclear weapons have kept Syria from falling apart? More outside aid? I don't know. Their's been quite a bit already, but it hasn't all been going to one side. Are you assuming a consensus where everyone backs Assad because he has nukes? That's possible, but it also shows the flip side of the coin- that having nukes can give a very evil man carte blanche, effective invulnerability.

Syria would have had to have been reckoned with, it would have gotten more favorable trade concessions, making it wealthier, which means lower birth rates, which means fewer young men looking for a higher purpose, which means fewer willing fighters. In addition, Syria is only in this situation due to the Sunni revival, which would not be nearly as strong as it is now without the invasion of Iraq and the decade of bombardment beforehand.
I am assuming a situation where Syria and Iraq would not have been so easily trodden upon, not one in which the world bends to their will.

Unless you wish to suggest that Assad would have won by using nukes on his own people, which may very well be true but is hardly an argument for him having them.

No, not even vaguely.

You seem to think nukes are a solution for everyone. People criticize my understanding of foreign policy, but your's is that of a simpleton. Its like "Me have big gun, so me safe", and that's it. I think you can argue that their is a place for nukes, as much as I'm uncomfortable acknowledging that, but they are damn well not a cure all, nor needed by every nation.

Again, it is not my preferred world, but even I am smart enough to understand that it is in each nations national interest to have nuclear weapons.

Your worldview assumes that we are at the end of history, that there is no chance of another war, or that you can rely entirely upon other to risk themselves on your behalf. It is a hothouse plant of a worldview, borne of decades of peace enforced by the devices that you wear, and by decades of alliance with a greater power.