祗許官兵放火, 不許百姓點燈 (#237, Topic F)

While listening to the presenter at the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace yesterday (#236), on nuclear testing and such, I could not help being reminded of a Chinese couplet, the title of today's entry. These two lines, in English, may be rendered thus: Setting fire by government officials is allowed; lighting lamp by ordinary citizens is disallowed. (In olden-day China, candles were the source of illumination.) The etymology of this couplet is rather complex, but the sentiment it expresses is straight forward: One in power may do whatever one pleases; one who is powerless cannot do, even on a much smaller scale, what is completely legitimate and routine. Early in yesterday's presentation, the presenter asked a rhetorical question: If Afghanistan had nuclear arms, would USA invade it in 2001? He did not answer the question; it would be interesting if he did. (Though, based on his subsequent presentation, I am inclined to think that he would answer it in the negative.) How would I know? I am assessing it in terms of my own research, on the Opium War of 1840. While doing my readings, I often asked myself this very question: Were China equipped with the modern weaponry at the time (which would be cannons and gunboats), would a rogue state such as Britain dare to provoke China into war by violating her waterways? No, no, NO. Weaponry in the hands of imperialist powers is intended to be used offensively; such powers, to make their invasion easier with as little military casualties as possible, prefer that those targeted for invasion possess nothing comparable. Not for defensive purposes, not even as a deterrent. Of course, weak nations would not possess any such weapons any way. But, were such weapons in their possession, it would cause an invading power to, at least, "think twice" (using yesterday's presenter's words). Is this a bad idea?