a reader asked:

Does the state have the right to develop nuclear weapons without seeking the consent of the citizenry? If so, why?

Most states do not have the right to develop nuclear weapons at all. Those that do, derive that right from their duty to defend their citizens. In some situations, the effectiveness of a weapon depends on secrecy. In such situations, if the the state in question has a right to develop that weapon at all, it has an obligation to develop it with the appropriate level of secrecy.

Thus, for instance, the Soviet Union and China had no right to develop nuclear weapons because they were rogue states. The United States had both a right and a duty to develop them because they were fighting a just war and such weapons would help to end it sooner, more certainly, and with less loss of life. Because of the circumstances, they also had a duty to do this in the utmost secrecy, which they did. Britain and France had a right to develop them under the conditions of the Cold War, but with a much lower level of secrecy: the existence and some of the capabilities of the weapons were rightly determined by public debate, while other details rightly remained secret. Israel had a right to develop them because of the existential threat it faced. Under the circumstances, the deterrence value of the weapons depended on only their bare existence being publicly known, but none of the other details. So the fact that they existed was deliberately leaked, and the other details kept secret – a policy of intentional ambiguity whose existence was itself deliberately leaked. These policies were publicly discussed and overwhelmingly approved. In particular, all the major political parties were in favour of them, and their leaders continued them through successive changes of government.