All people have the right to safely own an Atomic Bomb

Slavery is immoral. It is immoral because all people are created with equal authority over each-other; None. Legitimate authority can only be derived by consent. If a government loses the consent of the governed, those that withdraw their consent retain the same freedoms that the government claimed. The freedom to wage war, to conduct relations with foreign people, to regulate commerce within the boundary of their own property, and to defend themselves from foreign aggressors. Under this condition (Secession from any governing authority.) a person has the freedom to acquire or build a nuclear weapon using any means he himself acquired from nature or voluntarily acquired from others. Again, if a governing authority imposes arbitrary rules that may make the ownership of a nuclear weapon "illegal", the person has the freedom to withdraw his consent and retain the freedom to acquire a nuclear weapon. It is self evident that a person may do what he wishes with the property he has complete authority over. If a person has the freedom to chop down trees on his property and build a home, by that same token he may acquire resources for a nuclear weapon and build it on his property. However, this person, by building a nuclear weapon, is potentially putting his neighbors at risk by being within the area of the blast radius, or the radioactive debris associated with it. If a neighbor owned property prior to the introduction of this risk, he has the right by way of an "easement" to demand compensation to his satisfaction for the risk he observes, or else the owner of the nuclear weapon would be required, by force if necessary, to dismantle the nuclear weapon. This compensation for risk is the same principle as demanding a person put a gun down when they point it at you. This determination can and should be made by a neutral arbitrator, and can certainly be done before the nuclear weapon is complete. This neutral arbitrator could be a "government", if both the plaintiff and defendant consent to that governing authority. If no neutral arbitrator can be agreed upon, they must make an agreement among themselves, if they cannot agree among themselves then war will commence and whoever can bring the most force to bear will likely win. Which may not solve the dispute philosophically, but will certainly solve it in reality. This problem of resolving disputes persists even when one supposes that a ultimate arbitrator must be in place that may affirm arbitrary restrictions about what class of people may own nuclear weapons. Again there's no superior state of affairs introduced in the environment of a monopoly of violence and arbitration. Now, if there is no risk beyond a reasonable doubt to the neighbors property, then the atomic bomb may be acquired safely or built within that condition without any further considerations. He has complete freedom to do that, and any infringement of that freedom is immoral. Safely acquire: An introduction of risk may be associated with the travel of any nuclear weapon, and the routes and properties within the blast radius of such travel would need to be compensated to the satisfaction of all parties at risk. If the nuclear weapon were transported in such a way that no risk is introduced, then no compensation is warranted.