OK, so North Korea test-fired some missiles today. They, theoretically, could be outfitted to carry nuclear warheads. The world is in an uproar.
My question is: Why?
I question the whole practice of "non-proliferation" in the first place, I guess. You'll notice that the biggest supporters of non-proliferation are folks who already have well established nuclear programs -- the United States, Britain, Russia, etc., etc.
I believe that countries support non-proliferation not because they believe in a peaceful world -- if they did that, they'd destroy their own weapons as well -- but because the more people who have nuclear weapons available to them, the fewer people there are that they can push around diplomatically. Furthermore, there become more voices for third-world nations to have to pay attention to (e.g., a non-nuclear country pretty much has to do what a nuclear country says, because we can obliterate them if we wanted to... the more nuclear countries, the more people nuclear countries have to share that authority with).
People can mock MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) all they want to, but here's the summary you'll keep coming back to with it, are you ready?
It works.
Right now, we are the only superpower left in the world. If the Commander-in-Chief of the US of A was to go off his gourd (and, to be fair, there are many people who would say that this has already happened, but that's a different discussion), we could obliterate the world and there's nobody who could stop us. Heck, with the dismal failure rate of Russian nuclear weapons, there's not even really anyone who could pose a retaliatory threat these days.
That, of course, is a position that we like. We can push people around, and they have to do what we tell them, because -- in the end -- we can raise their ambient temperature to several million degrees Celsius in thirty minutes or less. Given that option, people will cave. The best part is that it's so unspoken that you don't even have to flex those nuts to get the results. If you're a non-nuclear country, why bother going through all the hassle to reach an endgame you know will eventually be summarized as "we can kick your ass, so do what we say"?
I'm all for nuclear proliferation. I believe it puts countries on an equal footing, and requires countries to actually listen to one another. Can you imagine how the "Cold War" might have gone slightly differently if we weren't actually afraid of the Soviet arsenal? The realization that we were on an equal footing in terms of ability to inflict damage on one another forced us to communicate, to attempt to understand one another.
Likewise, a nuclear-capable North Korea, or Iran, brings legitimacy to the bargaining table. Like it or not the ability of a country to rain nuclear death on people commands a certain amount of respect. I wish it wasn't the case, but them's the facts, and until nobody has nuclear weapons (and let's face it, that genie isn't going back into the bottle, good luck with that), I respect the right of any country that wants them to be able to have them, so they can defend themselves equally against other countries that already have them.
Context matters. We don't care that much that india has nukes. It concerns us that Pakistan does - they are one assassination away from a potential civil war. The problem isn't having nukes in the hands of rational government - and I include the old USSR in that - they wanted world domination, but they wanted to be alive to dominate it.
The problem is when irrational actors (like, say the leadership of North Korea) have nukes, or when national leadership seemingly open to the idea of martyrdom (Iran) gets them.
Imagine 1945 with a nuke armed Japan, for instance - they would have cheerfully detonated as many as they had (taking their own citizens with them if they had to) in order to "save face".
Your theory works only within the Western context of war (and at that, only in the post 1648 Westphalia based Western world). When war is "politics by other means", then MAD works fine. When you are dealing with death cults - not so much.
There are two other issues here.
#1. North Korea depends on the world for aid for food, medical supplies, etc. If they want our help, they have to play by our rules, just like any other country would demand.
#2. Nukes are the (current) ultimate weapon. These things should not be handled by children (or countries that act like them).
I agree with most of your points except in the case of #1. If you want our help, don't expect us to roll out the red carpet if you are going to build nukes or export them to other countries. Just as its not a good idea to give a loaded handgun to a three year old child, some of these countries don't exactly have the common sense to not use the damn things.
I think what every president has faced has been "can I sit here while (country x) builds nukes and will use them to incinerate 100,000 people on a whim".
Iran if nukes want them, should have them. Just don't expect the world to play along with your crap if you make that expensive decision.