OK. I didn't express myself right. There would be economic development, but it would not be enough to make most countries first world. There are more things to becoming first world besides energy, like education.

If you substitute "politicians" for "warmongers," that will quite reflect what have happened in the last century, and the situation doesn't seem to have changed. See, it's not a question of war, it's a question of power, and powerful people don't like sharing.

My point is that it is utterly naïve to think that nuclear power would ever be the solution for underdevelopment, as if the lack of energetic resources were the only deterrent to any country to develop. It is also naïve to think that the nuclear empowered nations do not take part nor have an interest on preventing that more countries develop nuclear technology. Any country that starts investing in uranium enrichment will face the threat of sanctions, which are not called for, or enforced, by the nuclear disarmament campaigners but by the same countries that have A-bombs. By the way, I know the difference between A-bombs and nuclear power plants---Soviet engineers where able to build a power plant but, nonetheless, the Kremlin had to buy the secret to the A-bomb. However, there is a lot of mistrust towards countries that want to develop this kind of energy, and I am not even thinking Iran, but Brazil and Argentina.

I'm answering you by quoting you, hoping that you pay attention to what you said.

According to Suzanne Massie, "trust, but verify" is the translation of a Russian proverb, "Doveryai no Proveryai," that she taught Reagan, and he repeated this saying more than once. Other source is: www.reagan.utexas.edu/....

Full disclosure: I searched through Wikipedia.