Statement: “Nuclear power cannot make a country secure.” Courses of Action: I. Stop further expenditure on increasing nuclear power. II. Destroy existing nuclear capability. III. Concentrate on improving diplomatic relations. Which course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
The statement is a normative claim that nuclear power alone does not guarantee security. Logical policy responses should strengthen other pillars of security such as diplomacy, alliances, intelligence, and conventional capabilities, rather than leaping to extreme disarmament or blanket spending cuts.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The claim challenges sufficiency, not existence, of nuclear power for security.
• No cost, treaty, or threat details are provided.
• Diplomacy enhances security via conflict prevention and de-escalation.

Concept / Approach:
From “not sufficient,” it does not follow that nuclear capability should be destroyed (II) or all further investment halted (I). It does follow that complementary non-nuclear instruments (III) should be strengthened.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Security is multi-dimensional; diplomacy contributes to stability independently of nuclear posture.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “not sufficient” with “not useful.”

Final Answer:
Only III follows.