5 ms·
Nuclear proliferation, like it or not, has done more for global peace than US military/trade hegemony. Ukraine gave up all its nukes in the 90s which is why thi
by wyager 5y ago
Nuclear proliferation, like it or not, has done more for global peace than US military/trade hegemony. Ukraine gave up all its nukes in the 90s which is why this is happening now.
- sorry_outta_gas 5y agoIt's hard to say, right now it looks like it's just letting countries armed to the teeth with them dominate whoever they want
- thatguy0900 5y agoSeems like an exageration. Do you think any country armed with nukes is dominating people as much as British empire, Romans, Mongols did? The fact that Russia (or China with Taiwan and Hong Kong) actually has to fight so hard for one country kind of shows they can't dominate whoever they want.
- freeopinion 5y agoThis reminds me very much of the slow motion train wreck leading into WWII. Germany had to fight hard in the same kind of political way back then, too. That was obviously pre-nuke. It takes a long time to build the many (logistical, psychological, political) facets required to lead your country down this path. With or without nukes. To answer your question, yes. A country with nukes is dominating people as much as the British empire, Romans, and Mongols did? How is that even a serious question? With military forces spread through Korea, Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Poland, Lithuania, Arizona, Alaska, Dominican Republic, Cuba, you name it. From sea to shining sea, then another sea and another sea.
- zionic 5y agoThey gave up those nukes with the promise we would protect them. That trick of ours won’t work again.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y agoIt's funny, or maybe sad, how so many people did not see this coming. All the propaganda and social engineering to get Biden associated with Ukraine so that when he tried to throw his hat in the ring, his own country will be alarmed. Going to end up looking like a fucking 9000 IQ play by Russia here, but hopefully the world proves me wrong.
- shigawire 5y agoIf you pursue party of the internet susceptible to disinfo this is already what is being trotted out. "Biden only wants to intervene because of Hunters business dealings!"
- asdff 5y agoWe would protect them. If Russia nuked Kyev goodbye surface of the earth. Likewise if Ukraine still had nukes and sent one at moscow.
- Johnny555 5y agoI'd be surprised if the USA started an all out nuclear war no matter what Russia did to Ukraine.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- swader999 5y agoI could see it happening accidentally.
- nradov 5y agoThe US would not retaliate militarily if Russia used nuclear weapons against Ukraine. That is not part of US nuclear doctrine. Ukraine is not a treaty ally.
- 5y ago
- csee 5y agoIt does a lot for global peace right up until our extinction. We don't need thousands of nukes to maintain deterrence. We should reduce our nuclear stockpile to the smallest number that still maintains deterrence.
- mrec 5y agoUkraine never had the codes to use those nukes. They didn't give up a functioning deterrent.
- landemva 5y agoLibya was invaded after giving up nuclear in 2003. Clinton pushed for the invasion as Secretary of State, then she joked about the death on TV. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/clinton-ponders-2020-run-lets-not-forget-her-real-libya-scandal-glenn-reynolds-column/895853001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/clinton-po... It should not be a surprise that North Korea refuses to disarm.
- wyager 5y agoOf course. You would have to be insane to agree to denuclearize at this point; it's clear that this is the only strategy to avoid being steamrolled by US/Russia/China.
- k41da 5y agoThis is happening because the sanctions put in place on Russia during the Trump admin were undone haphazardly by Biden. Russia is moving strictly because it knows it has the EU by the short hairs on energy and after the afghanistan exit the US is in a very strategically weak position. We should be grateful Ukraine does not have nukes. 12 hours ago the world might've gotten 4000C hotter if they did.
- Koshkin 5y agoRussia wouldn’t have attacked then, that’s all.
- paxys 5y agoUkraine did not have the ability to launch a single nuke. They didn't give up anything.
- freeopinion 5y agoI'm not convinced. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan again, Syria, Peru, Mali, ... When you say "world peace", do you mean European peace? California peace? Where is your world?
- wyager 5y agoNone of those countries had nukes, right?
- freeopinion 5y agoSigh. India, Pakistan, Falkland Islands, Tibet, Israel, ... And yes, in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again, Iraq, Syria, and others, one or more parties in the conflicts had nukes.
- wyager 5y ago> in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again, Iraq, Syria, and others, one or more parties in the conflicts had nukes. I don't care about the other parties in the conflict. Nukes stop you from getting invaded, not from invading. Afaik, none of these countries were nuclear when they got steamrolled.
- freeopinion 5y agoThe original argument was that nuclear proliferation has brought peace. Even if you argue that it has brought peace to countries that own nukes, you'd be wrong. Israel does not have peace. USA does not have peace. Russia does not have peace. Argentina tangled with the UK despite the UK's nukes. The Taliban has no fear of USA nukes.
- Const-me 5y agoI live in Montenegro. The country was part of Yugoslavia. I spoke with a guy who fought that war. I asked him "do you think the war would have ended without American intervention?" and he responded "no, I don't think it would". I wouldn't describe the country as a blooming economy, but it's peace here, for more than 20 years and counting.
- cute_boi 5y agoThe nukes never belonged to Ukraine, unfortunately. It was always controlled by Soviet Union.