3 ms·

Are the 1000+ bases part of a strategy to avoid nuclear proliferation? America agrees to provide security to its allies and in return its allies agree not to ac

Are the 1000+ bases part of a strategy to avoid nuclear proliferation? America agrees to provide security to its allies and in return its allies agree not to acquire nuclear weapons? How else are Brazil, South Korea, Indonesia etc... able to protect themselves against nuclear states?

krapp 10y ago
>How else are Brazil, South Korea, Indonesia etc... able to protect themselves against nuclear states? The US is a nuclear state, and the only state to have ever used nuclear weapons in warfare. Who's going to defend the world against the threat of American nuclear aggression? Will the world really be safer when only the US has nuclear weapons? Reducing nuclear proliferation is a noble endeavor, but the United States should not be the one leading the effort towards it as long as it has no intentions of dismantling its own arsenal. The world would be safer without nuclear weapons, but as long as the US remains an aggressive, nuclear military power that kidnaps, tortures and murders civilians in other countries with impunity, undermines their governments at will, supports terrorist groups and wages war on fabricated evidence, a nuclear-free world will remain impossible.
- greedo 10y ago
  Absolutely no proof the world would be safer without nuclear weapons. Arguably, nuclear weapons have helped deter large scale conflict immensely.
  - krapp 10y ago
    Those conflicts would be limited in their scope and their destructive potential, so arguably the world as a whole would be safer. How many cities can one nuclear-armed submarine destroy and how many such submarines do the nuclear powers of the world have? A thousand conventional wars are preferable to one full-scale nuclear war.
    - AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
      Yes, limited in scale and scope, much like World War II, or the Second Congo War, both of which occurred without the deterrent of nuclear weapons.
    - greedo 10y ago
      A thousand conventional wars? Maybe on the scale of WW1 where an entire generation of men were wiped out in Europe? Or the Franco Prussian wars which convulsed Europe before that? Or maybe something simple like the ethnic cleansing in Uganda that only resulted in a hair under 1 million casualties? How about the Indian sub-continent? Nuclear weapons have largely been responsible for keeping Pakistan and India from going at each other. Both know that their enemy has the ability to wipe each other out with nukes. Nuclear weapons should also be credited with keeping Sino-Soviet tempers from flaring too hot before the end of the Cold War. Some of the border incidents would have easily escalated to full war if Beijing hadn't been intimidated by Soviet nukes.

krapp 10y ago

>How else are Brazil, South Korea, Indonesia etc... able to protect themselves against nuclear states? The US is a nuclear state, and the only state to have ever used nuclear weapons in warfare. Who's going to defend the world against the threat of American nuclear aggression? Will the world really be safer when only the US has nuclear weapons? Reducing nuclear proliferation is a noble endeavor, but the United States should not be the one leading the effort towards it as long as it has no intentions of dismantling its own arsenal. The world would be safer without nuclear weapons, but as long as the US remains an aggressive, nuclear military power that kidnaps, tortures and murders civilians in other countries with impunity, undermines their governments at will, supports terrorist groups and wages war on fabricated evidence, a nuclear-free world will remain impossible.

greedo 10y ago
Absolutely no proof the world would be safer without nuclear weapons. Arguably, nuclear weapons have helped deter large scale conflict immensely.
- krapp 10y ago
  Those conflicts would be limited in their scope and their destructive potential, so arguably the world as a whole would be safer. How many cities can one nuclear-armed submarine destroy and how many such submarines do the nuclear powers of the world have? A thousand conventional wars are preferable to one full-scale nuclear war.
  - AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
    Yes, limited in scale and scope, much like World War II, or the Second Congo War, both of which occurred without the deterrent of nuclear weapons.
  - greedo 10y ago
    A thousand conventional wars? Maybe on the scale of WW1 where an entire generation of men were wiped out in Europe? Or the Franco Prussian wars which convulsed Europe before that? Or maybe something simple like the ethnic cleansing in Uganda that only resulted in a hair under 1 million casualties? How about the Indian sub-continent? Nuclear weapons have largely been responsible for keeping Pakistan and India from going at each other. Both know that their enemy has the ability to wipe each other out with nukes. Nuclear weapons should also be credited with keeping Sino-Soviet tempers from flaring too hot before the end of the Cold War. Some of the border incidents would have easily escalated to full war if Beijing hadn't been intimidated by Soviet nukes.