The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Print Edition
Letter to the editor submissions
Have a strong opinion about something happening on campus or in Fort Collins? Want to respond to an article written on The Collegian? Write a Letter to the Editor by following the guidelines here.
Follow Us on Twitter
When Should You Start Writing Your College Essay? 
When Should You Start Writing Your College Essay? 
May 28, 2024

Let's be frank: there's never an ideal moment to craft college essays. At best, there are times that are somewhat less unfavorable. Why is...

Weapons proliferation makes us safer, or does it?

Res Stecker
Res Stecker

*Editor’s note, the following column is satirical*

Despite being the single most destructive weapon in the history of mankind, the nuclear bomb is not talked about much in the news. Some of the most volatile states have the potential to gain access to many of these horrifying weapons, and I am not so sure that is a bad thing.


Nuclear proliferation is something that we should all discuss as a serious option to a deterrent of any future wars. Quite simply if we all have them, then no one will use them. It is the perfect way to keep humanity  at peace, through the threat of global destruction.

Now sure some states seem to have elevators that do not go all the way to the top, and there is the argument that they will not act rationally and will use nuclear weapons over a trade dispute on the tariffs of banana imports. But I would argue that everyone has an equal right to bear nuclear weapons.

We are all human beings right?

A global scenario of mutually assured destruction is very preferable to the international anarchical chaos that we have right now. Countries simply go around invading and fighting whomever they please. However, would Iraq have invaded Kuwait if Kuwait had a big ol Fat Boy waiting for Mr. Saddam? I seriously doubt it.

Now sure there are dangers in giving nuclear weapons to the heads of state or the governments of every country, especially since given the fact that many countries in the less developed world find it necessary to annihilate their own populations over petty disagreements. In these cases, nuclear weapons will provide a big boost to the security of these people.

The United States has a considerable stockpile of nuclear weapons, so whenever a state is committing crimes against its population, we should give the rebels nuclear weapons in order to check further violence. This is much more preferable to the cumbersome efforts of trying to solve problems diplomatically or get to the root of the problems.

Furthermore, since nuclear weapons are quite obviously a deterrent to violence on the national level (who would dare to strike the United States with all our awesome power?) we should create mini nuclear devices that each individual person can wear around, in order to keep them safe.

If everyone had a small amount of unstable weapons grade plutonium strapped to their chest then who would dare mess with them? I certainly wouldn’t. I may even be afraid to step out of my house every morning, because most people are crazy and would use the things to solve a dispute about what to buy at the store or just to get on national television, but hey that’s just me.

I suppose there may be a problem with people using the devices to rob banks or hold people hostage and causing general mayhem, but that is a small price to pay for everyone’s right to have a weapon of mass destruction.


Thus, I am advocating for everyone from Iran to crazy Paul at the insane asylum to be given nuclear weapons, in order to ensure lasting peace…

Alright, so that may not work. Everyone recognizes that there is an inherent need to check who can and cannot bear weapons to kill one another. The problem is that we have states or people like Russia that will sell off these dangerous things to the highest bidder, without any remorse about who they would be used against.

It is true that nuclear weapons have only been used twice in a state of war, but that is because most nuclear power states have something to lose by using them on one another. If the entire world had these terrible devices, no one anywhere would be safe, because people in general are crazy and cannot be trusted.

Although this piece may have been satirical in nature, it does point out the absurdity of arming everyone to the teeth. Responsible individual states have the right to own nuclear weapons, like America, China and Great Britain. Other states have not earned that right, mainly because many of them are involved in serious intra-state conflicts.

The same applies to individuals. There is a right to keep and bear arms, and all those that aren’t completely two fries short of a happy meal should be able to own them. But it does not mean everyone can, nor can they have a nuclear weapon.

Responsibility and accountability is what keeps people safe, not life threatening devices.

Res Stecker is a senior international studies and history double major, and is happy to write witty whimsical words of wisdom for all. Questions and comments can be sent to

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

When commenting on The Collegian’s website, please be respectful of others and their viewpoints. The Collegian reviews all comments and reserves the right to reject comments from the website. Comments including any of the following will not be accepted. 1. No language attacking a protected group, including slurs or other profane language directed at a person’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, physical or mental disability, ethnicity or nationality. 2. No factually inaccurate information, including misleading statements or incorrect data. 3. No abusive language or harassment of Collegian writers, editors or other commenters. 4. No threatening language that includes but is not limited to language inciting violence against an individual or group of people. 5. No links.
All The Rocky Mountain Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *