But why isn't stability the end all? Yes a stray nuke would kill a lot of people and be a very bad thing, but I'm saying that universal proliferation would end massive world conflicts, and decrease the quantity and intensity of minor conflicts, although terrorism might increase.
So the question is, which is better? More war and less terrorism? Or more terrorism and less war?
War, historically, has beaten terrorism in the number of dead a million times over. 9/11, though terrible, was the largest terrorist attack ever and it's death toll was no where near even minor battles in WWII. In WWI, 5000 British men died PER DAY.
Now, of course, a nuke would kill quite a few more. But nukes still aren't as devastating as total war. For example, in one day the bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed about 80,000. In one day of firebombing in Tokyo, 85,000 were killed. The numbers are very similar with the only difference being that that kind of firebombing went on all the time in Japan and Germany. One nuke killed 80k, but WWII killed 50 million, 67% of who were civilians.
Granted, nukes are bigger now, but not the ones that a terrorist could get - the so-called 'suitcase nukes.' I will also grant that a nuke that went off in New York City would be far more devastating than it's 1945 atomic predecessor. But just as nuclear weapons have grown more advanced, so have conventional weapons. Why are we so afraid of nukes destroying a city when a couple of dozen B-52s could do the same job?
Terrorism is a real threat, I just would rather see more terrorism and less war.
Ok, on to other things:
I'm STILL NOT talking about someone who's making decisions that he knows will finish him. I'm talking about a scenario where the leader makes a decision after his fate is already sealed.
I see now the point you were making, but I still disagree. You named three leaders, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin, and you also mentioned China.
--Lenin and Stalin: Whaaa?? How did they make decisions when they knew their fate was sealed. What big war did Lenin fight, let alone lose? There was, of course, the two Russian revolutions - BUT THEY WON!
And Stalin was on the winning side of WWII. He led the USSR to the biggest territory/client gain it ever had and the country survived another forty years after his death! If your argument is that these leaders made destructive decisions, knowing that their country was dying, how could either of these possibly fit?
--China: China has, right now the strongest economy it's ever had, the strongest military it's ever had and it is generally considered by most everybody who knows anything about the place to be the next rising superpower. How is their 'fate sealed?'
--Hitler: Ah - Finally! Somebody who lost! He still made commanding decisions, many of which were stupid, but he never suicidal ones (other than for himself). If the argument we're having is about whether or not a leader would take one last wild shot after he knew he was done for, Hitler never did anything like that. His last major offensive was the Battle of the Bulge, which he did have a legitimate chance of succeeding with. Everything else he did was purely defensive. Of course, he never surrendured, but that's quite a bit different from making a last Khan-setting-off-the-Genesis-device kind of attack.
I would love to address more of the argument, and I will later, but I have to get to class.