You are stopping the butcher to use big knives for fear he may go insane in the future and kill some customers with them, when millions of weapons are highly available.
Not at all, this is a logical fallacy.
A small fraction of countries have nuclear weapons and yet they still engage in conventional warfare because they really don't want to trigger a nuclear holocaust.
On top of that, terrorist organizations, guerrilla fighters, criminal organization and so on never managed to launch an ICBM.
I dont think you understand what a logical fallacy is. The number of nuclear weapons in the world is in the 5 figures order, that is fact. Nuclear weapons are a fact.
> and yet they still engage in conventional warfare because they really don't want to trigger a nuclear holocaust.
Most experts assessed the chance of a nuclear war during the Cuban missiles crisis at 1/3. Maybe that is a number you feel comfortable with, I dont. In +70 years of nuclear plants the 3 "big" accidents (3 Miles Island,Chernobyl, Fukushima) are nothing compared with that.
> On top of that, terrorist organizations, guerrilla fighters, criminal organization and so on never managed to launch an ICBM.
And never managed to sabotage a nuclear installation and cause an accident so your point is moot.
Spot on. People often ignore the political problems of nuclear power:
- Centralization of control encourages corruption and the hiding of incidents
- Power stations make excellent targets in case of war. The bigger they are, the bigger the impact
- Nuclear power stations also cause social panic if hit, even if the damage is minimal
- The last two points apply to war but also to terrorism
If we want political stability (aka no wars) we need reasonably decentralized access to food, water, energy and information.