Unlike Janissary & Seto , i don't think that it sounds stupid, but it is a " catch 22 situation "
Nuclear Disarmament is not that easy to be done .
On the other hand, having nuclear weapons WOULD be one of the methods of national defence that enables the country to provide protection.
I will explain what i mean exactly and make it as clear as crystal .
First of all, Nuclear Disarmament is not that easy to be done ?
Let's suppose that nuclear weapons was banned [if possible ], which country or national force is qualificated enough to do this ?
I don't think any national force in the world , even the security council , is able to ban israel or the united states [for example] from having nuclear weapons, So theorizing more than needed doesn't solve our problems.
As a result, the countries in the world will be divided into two parts :
The superpower countries which have those weapons and the weak countries which doesn't have ,and the superpower countries will control the world.
That's why there should be some countries , which are against israel , have nuclear weapons . [ israel which call for Nuclear Disarmament is creating nuclear weapons increasingly ]
There should be a balance in the world, i mean the Security Council should do sth for this problem in order to create a state of balance in the world .
Actually i am not 100% with the idea of having nuclear weapons, but it is logical and possible as i mentioned above .
With Regards