3 ms·

The poster you've replied to said >NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons NATO has more than enough capabilities to destroy

The poster you've replied to said >NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons NATO has more than enough capabilities to destroy Russia's conventional weaponry, but as Russia has nuclear weapons, NATO must also have them to keep parity. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. Genie's out of the bottle.

js8 4y ago
> Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. I disagree. Progress is being made (see ICANW), despite setbacks, some unfortunately coming from "the West", which is supposed to be morally more advanced. And NATO doesn't need to keep parity with Russia, what for? I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point?
- stoltzmann 4y ago
  NATO does have to at least keep parity with Russia. Russia is the number one threat in the region, and NATO was made specifically for this purpose. Without adequate weapons to ensure peace, there would be no point of the alliance. Nuclear weapons are necessary as a deterrent. In this case from an adversary that has nuclear weapons - without those in stock NATO would be outmatched and vulnerable to being subject to the threat of using them. At the end of the day, states with nuclear weapons get to push non-nuclear states around. Good luck getting Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea to disarm. Getting the West to abandon their nuclear weapons would be morally reprehensible as those states would become subjects to the states that did not. It's a nice dream, but: 1. It won't happen. 2. Nuclear weapons I believe are the most important reason why we did not have a conventional war in Europe for 80 years. Russia would not attack an adversary that was nuclear armed or in a nuclear sharing program.
  - js8 4y ago
    I do not agree with your cynicism. You just made an opposite argument - that NATO doesn't really need nuclear weapons to defend against Russia. I think, if NATO countries (and the U.S.) wanted to, they could make lot more effort to denuclearize. I don't think NATO can institutionally do it, though (it wasn't designed for it). For example, they could propose more aggressive mutual disarmament treaties, that would decrease arsenal in certain proportions on a timeline, with inspections. They don't do that, so I conclude that they don't really want to. As for the peace - plenty of countries in Europe that are not involved in nuclear weapons and yet enjoy peace. As you said - nuclear countries bully the non-nuclear ones around, therefore, effort should be made to get rid of them completely.
- lostapathy 4y ago
  > I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point? The point isn't that you win something with a second strike. The point is that second strike capability ensures no actor can make a first strike without risking consequence. It's about deterrent, not about winning.

js8 4y ago

> Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. I disagree. Progress is being made (see ICANW), despite setbacks, some unfortunately coming from "the West", which is supposed to be morally more advanced. And NATO doesn't need to keep parity with Russia, what for? I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point?

stoltzmann 4y ago
NATO does have to at least keep parity with Russia. Russia is the number one threat in the region, and NATO was made specifically for this purpose. Without adequate weapons to ensure peace, there would be no point of the alliance. Nuclear weapons are necessary as a deterrent. In this case from an adversary that has nuclear weapons - without those in stock NATO would be outmatched and vulnerable to being subject to the threat of using them. At the end of the day, states with nuclear weapons get to push non-nuclear states around. Good luck getting Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea to disarm. Getting the West to abandon their nuclear weapons would be morally reprehensible as those states would become subjects to the states that did not. It's a nice dream, but: 1. It won't happen. 2. Nuclear weapons I believe are the most important reason why we did not have a conventional war in Europe for 80 years. Russia would not attack an adversary that was nuclear armed or in a nuclear sharing program.
- js8 4y ago
  I do not agree with your cynicism. You just made an opposite argument - that NATO doesn't really need nuclear weapons to defend against Russia. I think, if NATO countries (and the U.S.) wanted to, they could make lot more effort to denuclearize. I don't think NATO can institutionally do it, though (it wasn't designed for it). For example, they could propose more aggressive mutual disarmament treaties, that would decrease arsenal in certain proportions on a timeline, with inspections. They don't do that, so I conclude that they don't really want to. As for the peace - plenty of countries in Europe that are not involved in nuclear weapons and yet enjoy peace. As you said - nuclear countries bully the non-nuclear ones around, therefore, effort should be made to get rid of them completely.
lostapathy 4y ago
> I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point? The point isn't that you win something with a second strike. The point is that second strike capability ensures no actor can make a first strike without risking consequence. It's about deterrent, not about winning.