The US is justified in preempting the spread of nuclear arms.

Self-defense justifies preemptionCon claims to show that the threat of nuclear arms falling into the hands of dictators and terrorists is not a “big worry.” Does that mean if the chances of it happening are 1 in 10, we shouldn't worry? Or maybe 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000? The reason to worry is that nuclear destruction is so bad we should try to lower the odds.Con does not argue against a right of self defense, he argues that other nations have greater rights. He argues that a right to make money from selling nuclear arms selling trumps any concern we have with preventing a nuclear strike. Con downplayed that argument in the face of the obvious priority of saving a million lives, but it also fails because there is a large legitimate market for the fuel for nuclear power plants. Con also claims that a right of sovereignty also trumps the right of self defense. He says preemption “trample[s] economic and national sovereignty.” Rights of a nation derive from the people, and because dictators deny free speech and free elections, they cede the right to be left alone. Other nations have no obligation to boot dictators, but self-defense takes precedence. Self-defense is so fundamental it would require an amendment to the US Constitution to require the President to subordinate protection of the United States to preserving the economic or sovereign rights of other nations.Sovereignty is “a country's independent authority and the right to govern itself.” [21. http://tinyurl.com...] Terrorists have no nation over which they are sovereign. Terrorists by definition wish to achieve political goals in independent states by terrorist acts, including the mass murder of civilians. Bin Laden said he wanted to impose sharia law. That's not a right of sovereignty. Having no state, terrorists have no apparent target of retaliation to deter them. DictatorsCon argues that dictators are rational and hence reliably deterred. He has only one supporting source, a blogger without foreign policy or psychoanalysis credentials. However, even Con's one source does not support Con's case.The blogger says Kim Jung Un is a rational actor. The blogger defines a rational actor is a person whose actions are predictable, as distinct from a madman that behaves unpredictably. For example, a serial killer who has murdered eleven young women can be confidently predicted to kill a twelfth – and thus is a rational actor. The blogger predicts: “When an “almighty leader” like Kim feels threatened, he acts by inducing more fear, proof being that the number of mass public executions has grown tremendously in the last months. … Another normal feature that rational dictators have is paranoia, everyone is a potential threat, a potential enemy to the leader and to the regime as well. If history serves as an example, dictator's “rational paranoia” led to horrible events, like the ones at the hands of Stalin, Hitler and others.” There is no better method of producing fear than nuking something. The blogger's prediction is stronger than my claim risk.My case went beyond questioning the leaders now in power in North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. I argued that a danger arises from nuclear weapons being in the hands of countries where a leader may come into power who takes a foolish risk or has a zealous belief. So we don't know for sure if Ayatollah Khomeini really believes that a world conflagration would user in the 12the Imam and Islam supremacy, but we do know that there are many people around him who say that, and it's likely that at least some believe it. No past dictators, not Stalin or Mao, entertained a radical ideology that preached the virtue of a suicidal jihadist attack. All dictators have few checks on taking unwise risks; look at Saddam. In the past few have had nuclear weapons for their risk taking.TerroristsCon's source says “ Building a basic nuclear weapon is not easy, but not all that hard either.“ The source cites an Army experiment years ago in which two PhD's with no experience or access to classified materials completed a successful design in two years. The underwear bomber was a idiot, but there is plenty of top talent willing to work for money or for a fanatical cause. What they need is to be left alone to work.Con claimed countries jealously guard their nuclear secrets. China and Russia refused to give nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, but they provided assistance in developing a nuclear power program that provided a nuclear infrastructure with access to uranium and the means to make plutonium. Weapons technology was separately obtained from Pakistan in return for $3 million in bribes to top officials. [22. http://tinyurl.com...]The raw material for a U-235 bomb is uranium oxide, and that's in large supply. Uranium 235 is used to fuel nuclear reactors, and mining of uranium oxide produces about 40 million kilograms per year. 0.72% of natural uranium is U-235, so mining enough material is produced to make 20,000 bombs per year, at 14.4 kg each. A 14.4 kg uranium device would have a yield of about 200 kt. Using 1991 technology, the W-85 warhead was 13.3” x 40.8”, weighed a total of 324 lbs, and had a yield of 200 Kt. [23. http://tinyurl.com...]Both U-235 and plutonium 239 have a theoretical maximum yield of about 20 kt per kilogram. To achieve critical mass, about 14.4 kg of uranium or 4.4 kg of plutonium are required. In 1996 prices of those materials such that a critical mass of uranium would cost $742,000, and for plutonium $20.4 million. [24. http://tinyurl.com...] The price of the uranium oxide is now about $100/kg, making the uranium $260/kg. That implies a materials cost of $504,000 for a uranium bomb. [25. http://tinyurl.com...] North Korea uses plutonium, a bi-product of its nuclear reactors. Terrorism is well financed. The Taliban alone receives about $200 million a year, mostly from Gulf sources. [26. http://tinyurl.com...] Terrorists do not have heavy weapons like tanks because they are obvious targets that would be instantly destroyed. Terrorists want instruments of terror, like nuclear weapons.Con's plan is that there is no preemption, so anyone can order up as much as they want, and Con argues that every country should have unbounded economic rights to sell materials. In fact, without preemption anyone could fund and build nuclear weapons in the open and sell them to third parties. Preemption is now tracks the industrial process of enrichment of the uranium to weapons grade. Without preemption there would be no need to even hide those processes.Getting a bomb into the United States illegally would not be difficult. Marijuana is smuggled in by the ton using boats. In one case a boat with 3000 to 4000 pounds of marijuana was found abandoned on the California coast. [27. http://tinyurl.com...] Custom submarines are also used.There are unguarded conventional border crossings into Canada. For a high value cargo like a nuclear weapon, the inconvenience of a Canadian route to the target would be justified, whereas for drugs it usually is not. [28. http://tinyurl.com...]History shows preemption should be increasedPreemption has sometimes succeeded and sometime failed. I gave the example of the successful effort to secure the nuclear materials left over from the collapse of the Soviets. Had Saddam been left alone, he would have reconstituted his nuclear weapons program. That there are forty countries with the capability who have not exercised it marks substantial success for preemption. Extending the U.S. nuclear umbrella is one type of preemption.The cases where preemption failed, like North Korea, show that preemptive efforts should have been stronger. The trend is for smaller and less stable regimes to obtain nuclear weapons, and as a matter of self-defense the U.S. is justified in lowering the risk from fanatics and foolish despots. Con's arguments that it isn't necessary now are beside the point; it's justifed when needed.