Don Roley said:
In most cases. Take a look at both Pakistan and India. Bad blood on both sides. Both developed the bomb due to the fear of the other in accordence with what you lay out.
But I think that North Korea is another case. I don't think that they honestly believe that they would be threatened by the south or the US if they actied decently towards others.
The part in italics is a huge condition. Some countries like Zimbabwe are just as nasty, but don't do the things to their neighbors or the US that North Korea does. It is an open secret that they conterfeit South Korean, Japanese and American currency. They have kidnapped people from other countries, blown up airplanes, given support to terrorists, etc.
So the only thing they can hope to do to prevent the US form spanking them is to develop a credible threat.
Zimbabwe, as bad as it is, does not feel the need for nukes. But North Korea is a bit different.
In short, it is kind of a case by case deal and there is no one clear answer.
Actually, India wanted the bomb almost from the inception of its independence.
As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal."Jawaharlal Nehru, June 26, 1946
India conducted their first nuclear test in 1974-their program led to Pakistan's pursuing one, of course, but India's reasons for their nuclear program were varied, and included the the threat of
China, as well as the now outmoded idea of "peaceful nuclear explosions," for purposes such as mining and construction.
North Korea, your almost entirely accurate observations notwithstanding, has primarily sought nuclear weapons as a form of leverage over the international community to seek economic concessions, principally from the U.S. Ditto their delivery system programs. Remember, Don, that our government sent me there as an IAEA delegate in 1994. If I had my way, they'd eat their bombs, but eventually they'll probably get around to using them, as you've observed, unless something is done to prevent that.
Your last sentence, though, is completely accurate, and partly an effect of past history-little has been done to deter the development of nuclear weapons by others, and the past model of "mutually assured destruction" led to their further proliferation, and the eventual current perceived misbalance in nuclear power will continue to lead to more nations seeking and attaining a nucler capability-
just because they can, in some instances.Zimbabwe, as bad as it is, hasn't the resources to develop nuclear weapons, except perhaps for uranium ore, which is found just about everywhere (Lesley Groves found that out when he tried to corner the world's supply during the Manhattan Project.)
