Why the World needs more than one Superpower and more countries that own nuclear weapons.

Weird title, I'll agree. But there really is a need for more than one Superpower in the world, and more countries with nuclear weapons.

First of, I shall touch on the less controversial of the 2. Why should there be more than one Superpower in the world? Remember the good old Iron Curtain days? USA and USSR were in constant struggle to be the mightier of 2 Superpowers. Weapons were made, missiles were launched, men were put into space, etc. People died, but most were soldiers/spies/double-agents/Afghans/Vietnamese, so they were prepared to die anyway. But basically, other than a few hot-spots in the world, where out and out fighting was present, there wasn't much suffering in the rest of the world (except Africa, but thats another story for another day).

And why is this so? Because everyone was either on the American's side or the Ruskies' side. If you fark with me, my big brother will get you. Case in point, Cuban Missile Crisis. Good ole' Fidel Castro pointed a few missiles at the big US of A. Did the Americans start a pre-emptive strike and knock the crap out of Fidel's toys? Nope. They didn't dare, cause they know the consequence if they do. The Red Army will be down on them and a Third World War would ensue. Or at the very least, the US of A would have a 'Vietnam' in their own backyard. So they did the only logical thing, which is to coax the Ruskies to talk their little brother out of aiming their missiles at America.

Speaking of Vietnam, thats an example where big brothers (USSR and China) helped his little brother (North Vietnam). In doing so, the Vietcongs were able to repel the American forces, thus ensuring that the little guy can defeat the big bully with the backing of a Superpower.

And in a tit-for-tat reply, during the Soviet-Afghan War of the 80s, the Americans, playing the big brother role this time, secretly supplied mountain weapons and 1 Rambo to the Afghan insurgents in their war against the Soviets, making life difficult for them, which resulted in the Soviet's eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan.

A present day example where a second balancing 'Superpower' coming it useful and preventing a war would be the North Korea missile test issue. If North Korea wasn't on such buddy terms with China, the closest country to a second Superpower in the world currently, would the US just stood there and demand 'sanctions' on North Korea only? Will they bollocks? They would probably have knocked the living daylights out of North Korea even before the North Koreans 'tested' those missiles. The only reason why the Americans didn't do so is because they are afraid to piss the Chinese off.

Therefore, I conclude, more than one Superpower is required in the world so that they can 'police' each other and ensure that the other does not bully little countries.

Now the more controversial issue, more countries that own nuclear weapons. Controversial, but very easily explained. Lets say a country have a single nuclear missile, would you dare shoot missiles into it? Or invade it? Hell no. You either shoot a nuclear missile into it and get it over and done with, and in doing so, start a nuclear war, or you just don't do anything. Would Israel have invaded Lebanon if they know that Lebanon has nuclear missiles? I don't think so. This is probably a very dim view of things, but I don't see countries with nuclear capabilities being invaded so far. No invasion, no war. No war, no deaths. World Peace. Haha. I rest my case.

Oh yes, and Iraq doesn't count, unless we're talking about invisible nuclear missiles.