Reaction to Fegley and Dominiak on Nuclear Bombs

I have been fortunate to participate in a debate series with two world-class libertarian theorists, Tate Fegley and Lukasz Dominiak, concerning gun control and the conditions under which banning certain weapons might be compatible with the libertarian philosophy of freedom. My position is that such prohibitions would be exceedingly rare, with nuclear weapons serving as the primary exception. I argue that nuclear weapons should be prohibited per se because they inherently threaten innocent people, thereby violating the libertarian non-aggression principle, and because their destructive power cannot be confined solely to the guilty; by their very nature, they inevitably harm innocents along with wrongdoers. Fegley and Dominiak reject this conclusion. This issue is of profound importance given contemporary geopolitical tensions: nuclear-armed states such as China and India face recurring hostilities, Israel is widely believed to possess such weapons while Iran does not yet, and Russia, despite being engaged in a prolonged war, has not deployed them. Few issues carry greater global significance, as the spread of nuclear capability increases the risk and danger for the entire world.