3 ms·

Similarly I do not like authoritarians and therefore feel very bad for North Korean citizens. However I don’t understand why they are not allowed (or Iran, or a

Similarly I do not like authoritarians and therefore feel very bad for North Korean citizens. However I don’t understand why they are not allowed (or Iran, or any country) to build their own nuclear weapons. Many countries have nukes - what is their right to have them? Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? I wish nukes would go away, but morally speaking if one country can have them then all countries can have them. It’s power politics after that.

chii 4y ago
> Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? not really. If you didn't already have nukes, but your regime is much against the west, i'd argue that it is the right thing for the west to deny it from them. I am attaching no moral argument to this - simply a practical, utilitarian argument. The reason russia has free reign to invade ukraine is _because_ they have nukes. Iraq invaded Kuwait just the same, but was pressed back in a war - imagine if they did have nukes; it would mean that Iraq could've acted with impunity, and they'd control all of the oil resources that was Kuwaits'.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  I agree from a western perspective. In a power struggle of west vs. various eastern alliances, it is in the west’s interest to prevent the spread of nukes. From a plain and simple moral perspective, IMO every country has the right to build them. Preventing that is about what team you are on rather than morals.
  - snickerer 4y ago
    It is a mistake to think in moral categories regarding to international politics. Morale is something a group-in-power uses to control (or influence) the public. Like fear, greed, or compassion. Morale is not a basis for political decisions or political analysis. Every country's ruler wants nuclear weapons. And every ruler wants the other rulers not to have the bomb at the same time. To force the others not to develop the bomb, you must put pressure on them. A good way to put pressure is... to have the bomb.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  >but your regime is much against the west, flip it over. west is against you so why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it?
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    > why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it? As the parent poster explicitly states, there is no "moral argument" made there, it's a very utilitarian realpolitik argument that allowing you nukes is risky enough that for any western politician respecting their countries' interests the right choice is to enforce submission with all kinds of means (economic, military, espionage).
robryan 4y ago
For most normal countries that aren't engaged in a power struggle against the world order it is probably safest for them if no one else can have them. The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction, so more actors are likely going to be more dangerous than the danger from the current holders.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  so why should "west" have them as opposed to someone else?
  - sfe22 4y ago
    They are the current rulers and they have ruled it be this way.
  - chillwaves 4y ago
    No one is arguing "should".
- meitham 4y ago
  >>> For most normal countries That's quite a racist thing to say. There is no such thing as normal and abnormal countries! >>> aren't engaged in a power struggle against the world order The US has been engaged in several coups around the world, but you will of course conveniently ignore this and pretend these countries are struggling to defeat the US. >>> The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction Counter point. India and Pakistan have not engaged in war since them both becoming nuclear powers. The US and Russia unlikely to go to war because of the ir nuclear powers! If every country had them it's likely to make the world safer.
aubanel 4y ago
In my opinion, the situation where only a few powerful countries with quite stable institutions have nukes is better for humanity than the situation where every country has their own nukes. Just consider the number of coups or wars going on every decade: if everyone the incumbent leader knows that they can just press the red button and wipe out their opponents, of course it would en up happening one day, and could trigger a chain reaction. This risk of "president goes mad" (don't look at the button Vladimir) is minimal when as few countries as possible have nukes. Of course, this goes against the social justice between countries - but wait, does that concept even exist?
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  uh,,,, trump doesn't fall into the "president goes mad"? wasn't he the single guy who walked away from iran deal when even iran was willing to satisfy their end and EU urged US to reconsider but trump refused? could that not have solved "A LOT OF OUR PROBLEMS" and problems of ordinary citizens living in iran? but no. trump had to fuck this one up and looks like he wants a second run.

chii 4y ago

> Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? not really. If you didn't already have nukes, but your regime is much against the west, i'd argue that it is the right thing for the west to deny it from them. I am attaching no moral argument to this - simply a practical, utilitarian argument. The reason russia has free reign to invade ukraine is _because_ they have nukes. Iraq invaded Kuwait just the same, but was pressed back in a war - imagine if they did have nukes; it would mean that Iraq could've acted with impunity, and they'd control all of the oil resources that was Kuwaits'.

monero-xmr 4y ago
I agree from a western perspective. In a power struggle of west vs. various eastern alliances, it is in the west’s interest to prevent the spread of nukes. From a plain and simple moral perspective, IMO every country has the right to build them. Preventing that is about what team you are on rather than morals.
- snickerer 4y ago
  It is a mistake to think in moral categories regarding to international politics. Morale is something a group-in-power uses to control (or influence) the public. Like fear, greed, or compassion. Morale is not a basis for political decisions or political analysis. Every country's ruler wants nuclear weapons. And every ruler wants the other rulers not to have the bomb at the same time. To force the others not to develop the bomb, you must put pressure on them. A good way to put pressure is... to have the bomb.
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
>but your regime is much against the west, flip it over. west is against you so why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it?
- PeterisP 4y ago
  > why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it? As the parent poster explicitly states, there is no "moral argument" made there, it's a very utilitarian realpolitik argument that allowing you nukes is risky enough that for any western politician respecting their countries' interests the right choice is to enforce submission with all kinds of means (economic, military, espionage).

robryan 4y ago

For most normal countries that aren't engaged in a power struggle against the world order it is probably safest for them if no one else can have them. The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction, so more actors are likely going to be more dangerous than the danger from the current holders.

2Gkashmiri 4y ago
so why should "west" have them as opposed to someone else?
- sfe22 4y ago
  They are the current rulers and they have ruled it be this way.
- chillwaves 4y ago
  No one is arguing "should".
meitham 4y ago
>>> For most normal countries That's quite a racist thing to say. There is no such thing as normal and abnormal countries! >>> aren't engaged in a power struggle against the world order The US has been engaged in several coups around the world, but you will of course conveniently ignore this and pretend these countries are struggling to defeat the US. >>> The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction Counter point. India and Pakistan have not engaged in war since them both becoming nuclear powers. The US and Russia unlikely to go to war because of the ir nuclear powers! If every country had them it's likely to make the world safer.

aubanel 4y ago

In my opinion, the situation where only a few powerful countries with quite stable institutions have nukes is better for humanity than the situation where every country has their own nukes. Just consider the number of coups or wars going on every decade: if everyone the incumbent leader knows that they can just press the red button and wipe out their opponents, of course it would en up happening one day, and could trigger a chain reaction. This risk of "president goes mad" (don't look at the button Vladimir) is minimal when as few countries as possible have nukes. Of course, this goes against the social justice between countries - but wait, does that concept even exist?

2Gkashmiri 4y ago
uh,,,, trump doesn't fall into the "president goes mad"? wasn't he the single guy who walked away from iran deal when even iran was willing to satisfy their end and EU urged US to reconsider but trump refused? could that not have solved "A LOT OF OUR PROBLEMS" and problems of ordinary citizens living in iran? but no. trump had to fuck this one up and looks like he wants a second run.