4 ms·

All the countries the US has fucked up in the past few years have not had nuclear weapons. It's obvious only nuclear weapons can guarantee your national securit

All the countries the US has fucked up in the past few years have not had nuclear weapons. It's obvious only nuclear weapons can guarantee your national security against a major superpower. Why would anyone get rid of them when this is the case? Big or small nuclear weapons protect people from assholes out to get them for whatever shitty agenda they have concocted. On the other hand they protect dictatorships and democracies similarly, but better to live under the foot of a dictator than as a failed US liberation campaign which potentially kills thousands, maybe hundred of thousands of your citizens, destroy your economy and way of life, in the name of their liberation and then hands them over to organizations like ISIS to fuck them up some more.

adventured 7y ago
Having nuclear weapons doesn't prevent destabilization tactics, the likes of which the US and Europe (NATO allies) used to destroy Syria and Libya most recently. In fact it increases the argument eg the US would then have to invade urgently to secure the nuclear weapons once destabilization has occurred. Plans for securing-the-nukes missions exist for countries like Pakistan and North Korea for example. Further, the premise of deterrence is shaken when you consider the post 9/11 Pakistan example. The US threatened to 'bomb Pakistan back into the Stone Age' [1] if they did not comply with US demands in relation to post 9/11 military action. The US was not deterred by Pakistan having nuclear weapons. It can also do the opposite of increase dictatorship stability. It increases the value of taking control of the country if you're an internal revolutionary group. If you're one of those groups and you topple a Gaddafi or Bashar al-Assad, or the House of Saud, once they have nukes, you become drastically more powerful on the world stage. It's a very large incentive to try to overthrow them. It's potentially a giant lever of power and blackmail. [1] "President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said yesterday that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with the American campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan." "General Musharraf said the intelligence director had told him that Mr. Armitage had said: “‘Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.’" https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/asia/22pakistan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/asia/22pakistan.htm...
- arkh 7y ago
  > The US was not deterred by Pakistan having nuclear weapons. Because they were not there for resource. Iraq would have been another story: getting oil from a radiation scorched area is not fun.
- Synaesthesia 7y ago
  With regard to Pakistan, the US is in an alliance with the generals who lead it, and conduct drone strikes against groups in Pakistan. That’s the current situation.

adventured 7y ago

Having nuclear weapons doesn't prevent destabilization tactics, the likes of which the US and Europe (NATO allies) used to destroy Syria and Libya most recently. In fact it increases the argument eg the US would then have to invade urgently to secure the nuclear weapons once destabilization has occurred. Plans for securing-the-nukes missions exist for countries like Pakistan and North Korea for example. Further, the premise of deterrence is shaken when you consider the post 9/11 Pakistan example. The US threatened to 'bomb Pakistan back into the Stone Age' [1] if they did not comply with US demands in relation to post 9/11 military action. The US was not deterred by Pakistan having nuclear weapons. It can also do the opposite of increase dictatorship stability. It increases the value of taking control of the country if you're an internal revolutionary group. If you're one of those groups and you topple a Gaddafi or Bashar al-Assad, or the House of Saud, once they have nukes, you become drastically more powerful on the world stage. It's a very large incentive to try to overthrow them. It's potentially a giant lever of power and blackmail. [1] "President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said yesterday that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with the American campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan." "General Musharraf said the intelligence director had told him that Mr. Armitage had said: “‘Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.’" https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/asia/22pakistan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/asia/22pakistan.htm...

arkh 7y ago
> The US was not deterred by Pakistan having nuclear weapons. Because they were not there for resource. Iraq would have been another story: getting oil from a radiation scorched area is not fun.
Synaesthesia 7y ago
With regard to Pakistan, the US is in an alliance with the generals who lead it, and conduct drone strikes against groups in Pakistan. That’s the current situation.