(1) Non-proliferation is the official nuclear policy of the free world. Succinctly, it says: it is proper and fitting for the countries which possess nuclear arms to have them; it is reprehensible and unacceptable (and punishable by sanctions or worse) for any other country to even think of trying to acquire the technology to build a bomb.

The economic version of this would be: it is proper and fitting for rich countries to be wealthy; it is totally unacceptable (and punishable by sanctions or worse) for an underdeveloped country to aspire to build up its economy and join the club. (This wouldn’t be anyone’s unofficial economic policy now, would it?)

(2) The argument has always been: We, the haves, are going to use our huge nuclear arsenals to maintain world peace. Therefore, we need to keep building more and bigger bombs.

On the other hand, for you, the have-nots, to have this technology would seriously endanger world peace. Therefore, we need to keep building more and bigger bombs.

(3) Who was it who had something profound to say about the effects of “controlling the means of production”?

(4) Peaceful uses of atomic energy? Apparently “We will build a bomb and use it as a deterrent against war“ still counts under certain circumstances. India has tacitly been all but accepted into the nuclear club on this basis. Hard to argue with their sanctimonious piety when they start talking about thousands of years of a culture of peace, and when they play their “largest democracy in the world” card. And when they go:
“Hey, hey! Hoo hoo!
We’re a have, the same as you!”

(5) What would happen if a rogue nation, which arrogated to itself a divine right to invade any country it wanted on trumped up charges and which totally ignored the international consensus against such an act, what would happen if such a country were ruled by delusional leaders who lived in a bubble and were entrusted by God (not an intelligent designer but an angry, vengeful, tough-love God) with seek-and-destroy missions (a God with P.R. smarts, who sold said mission as destroying an evil empire to create democracy and a republic of love), what would happen if such a country with such leaders had access to an arsenal of nuclear bombs?

Apparently, nothing at all.

(6) What’s the difference between prostitution and nuclear black-marketing?

With prostitution, you prosecute the prostitutes, not the johns.

With nuclear black-marketing, you stomp on the johns, and release the prostitutes with a kiss on the cheek, to go ply their trade again (and to the same johns).