This reminds me of a discussion I was having with Hexbear members on Lemmy recently.
I was suggesting that perhaps it makes sense for the UK to have nukes, for self-defence against other nuclear countries like Russia, China, and potentially even the US, given their unpredictable behaviour. People from Hexbear got angry at this suggestion. One of them suggested that it’s immoral to have nukes because nukes are “threatening civilians”.
Maybe the OP image of this thread is right though: megalomaniacs are not deterred by words, but they are deterred by weapons (such as nukes). Ukraine was invaded because they didn’t have enough deterrents. Iran is currently being bombed because I suppose they also didn’t have enough deterrents.
I think ideally there would be no nukes in the world, because they are dangerous. But nukes do exist. If western countries got rid of their nukes, then the remaining nuclear countries would be able to do what they like. “Surrender to our demands or we will nuke your cities.”
The only reason it stayed cold the whole time is that both sides had nukes. Even the most adamant of chicken hawks hesitated to pull the trigger with the consequence of the world becoming uninhabitable hanging over our heads.
Potentially. I think it depends on how they’re used. If a country decides to completely disarm itself though, then it’s entirely possible that other countries will seek to invade and subjugate.
This reminds me of a discussion I was having with Hexbear members on Lemmy recently.
I was suggesting that perhaps it makes sense for the UK to have nukes, for self-defence against other nuclear countries like Russia, China, and potentially even the US, given their unpredictable behaviour. People from Hexbear got angry at this suggestion. One of them suggested that it’s immoral to have nukes because nukes are “threatening civilians”.
Maybe the OP image of this thread is right though: megalomaniacs are not deterred by words, but they are deterred by weapons (such as nukes). Ukraine was invaded because they didn’t have enough deterrents. Iran is currently being bombed because I suppose they also didn’t have enough deterrents.
Ukraine actually gave their nukes on the promise of future safety. We all saw how that worked out.
Exactly. If Ukraine had their own nukes by the time of 2014, or if they had been part of NATO, then maybe Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine.
“More nukes” is never a good solution to any problem
I think ideally there would be no nukes in the world, because they are dangerous. But nukes do exist. If western countries got rid of their nukes, then the remaining nuclear countries would be able to do what they like. “Surrender to our demands or we will nuke your cities.”
You’d think so, but it worked out surprisingly well during the cold war.
The war that was caused by nuclear arsenals and ended with treaties to get rid of them? The fuck
The only reason it stayed cold the whole time is that both sides had nukes. Even the most adamant of chicken hawks hesitated to pull the trigger with the consequence of the world becoming uninhabitable hanging over our heads.
I’m not saying that MAD is not a thing, I’m just saying it’s a stupid thing. And that the cold war ended when both parties eventually realized that
Perhaps not a good one, but still a solution, when a bear gets overly familiar.
Bear
Beets
Battlestar Galactica
what if your nuclear weapon collection is looking too small? How, other than getting more nukes, does on remedy this problem?
North Korea is a good example of a small collection of Nukes being an effective detterant.
Bet they also think Russia should have nukes to stave off western imperialism
All weapons of war threaten civilians.
Potentially. I think it depends on how they’re used. If a country decides to completely disarm itself though, then it’s entirely possible that other countries will seek to invade and subjugate.