Should All Countries be Able to Possess Nukes

        There are currently only five countries that are able to possess nuclear weapons. Although it is believed as many as four other states currently hold nuclear weapons. The United States and other powerful countries have tried to deter countries like Pakistan, Libya, Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.  The criteria for development and procession of nuclear weapons are not clearly outlined. The United States has been inconsistent in their acceptance of other countries to develop nuclear weapons. A key example of this is Israel. Israel took their own initiative in developing a nuclear weapon facilities. They were not recognized on the Treaty of Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) but regardless developed to what is believed to be over 80 nuclear weapons. Iran attempted to develop nuclear weapons without the permission of other nations as well. The United States made a huge effort to deter their development of nuclear weapons and facilities. To me this is hypocritical. The justification that is often offered is Iran has a irrational government, which is an incredibly subjective argument and raises the question "what is a rational country?". In my opinion, nuclear weapons should not be allowed to be developed and possessed by any country.
        My first argument for why nuclear weapons should be disbanded has to do with failure to identify proper criteria for nuclear weapon programs. There are currently five countries allowed to hold nukes by the NPT, The United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and China. What is the common factor that all these countries have that makes them eligible to hold these nuclear weapons? To me it is unclear. Some would argue that these countries have the most power, are the most cooperative and act the most rationally. Russia has a history of oppressing their people and so does China. China is still a communist state. China still does not elect their own leaders to make decisions that best represent public opinion. How are they any more rational than a countries like Germany, Poland or India. The decision by the NPT to only allow these five states to have nuclear weapons is what is irrational. There is very little logical justification that explains why only these five countries may possess nuclear weapons while others cannot.
        My next argument deals more directly with why nuclear weapons should be banned for all countries.  A common argument for nuclear weapons being allow by some countries and not others is that if an "irrational","unjust" state wishes to seek global domination and oppress large groups of individuals (similar to Nazi-Germany's efforts) than nuclear weapons could quickly solve the problem. My question is to what extent are we willing to use nuclear weapons? Although it might be a quick solution to this problem are we willing to kill thousands of innocent people to stop only a small number of  political leaders and supporters. To me using a nuclear weapons should never be done because it is unethical and unjust. Although, it is hard to have a war without the sacrifice of innocent lives we should take every effort to protect those innocent people. Why should mass causalities be expensed for actions caused by a small number of individuals? A counter argument used is that we save more of our soldiers and people by deploying nuclear weapons rather than combating in battle. This might be true but aren't all innocent people equal? Are the lives of citizens in our country any more valuable than lives of innocent people of other countries? I think all innocent people are equal and we should take equal measures in the preservation of other nations innocent lives as we do our own.
        The way our world powers are distributed in the current era we are capable of fending off any nation that becomes oppressive and seeks global domination. Because of organizations like the UN, states are better able to cooperate and as a result have more similar values. We have already established the idea of "Democratic Peace". The most powerful countries with the exception of China are all democracies. This makes it highly unlikely that a democratic nations will become unruly and seek to gain control globally. Because all the most powerful countries are allies and have similar values it would make it relatively easy without nuclear weapons to fend off foreign enemies who wish to seek global dominance. How we regulate a ban of nuclear weapons is a good question. The same question can be asked however, for our current regulations. Ultimately it is nearly impossible to control other countries from developing weapons of mass destruction. I believe by no state being allowed to process these weapons it makes other countries less likely to want to develop their own because it takes away the hypocrisy of the situation. If there was a global ban of nuclear weapons it would make it difficult for nations to develop nuclear weapons. The materials necessary for development would be more sparse since they rely on production of other nations for development.