4 ms·
It seems unlikely. Most of them were either lost on US soil or lost along with military personnel who died. But the more convincing logic is: why would the US
by ddulaney 4y ago
It seems unlikely. Most of them were either lost on US soil or lost along with military personnel who died.
But the more convincing logic is: why would the US want to do that? The fewer other nations have nuclear weapons, the more power the US has over them, either because it can threaten to attack them or because it can provide nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Stationing US weapons in a foreign country and getting to set up a forward base? Heck yeah. Giving up control of those weapons and maybe having them turned against you decades down the line? Not a chance.
- causality0 4y agowhy would the US want to do that? "The US" wouldn't. People in the US with great political power would.
- HyperSane 4y agoWhy?
- causality0 4y agoMaybe they were paid for it. Maybe they were threatened or blackmailed for it. Maybe they feel a political, religious, or ethnic loyalty to another country. Plenty of people in the US are more than happy to do things that run counter to the US' interests. The entire American military-industrial complex directly benefits from the US being more in danger because it means they get more money.
- xwolfi 4y agoIf a Russian colonel aboard a submarine refused direct order to launch a nuke at the height of the cold war, I think we can assume very few are the people ready to deal with nuclear bombs for a buck. Many things can cross moral boundaries, but I think I d rather deal in drugs and slaves, tanks and assault rifles than uranium, if only for money. And if not for money, only for national survival. We struggled in France to finish our fusion bomb design and a british double agent pointed us at the best model we had that was similar to the british one, we're not sure if he did it for France or because the British wanted us to have it too, but it wasn't for money, for instance, even if it was a terrible decision to make as a human for him Im sure.
- causality0 4y agoIf I could push a button and give three or four nuclear weapons to Ukraine, I'd do it without hesitation.
- squarefoot 4y agoTo transform them into the bad guys instantly? No thanks, I'd rather give them enough troops and conventional weapons so that whatever thing Russia throws at them is being intercepted, and Russian land troops essentially would hit a wall. That way Russia would be forced to either withdraw (= Putin political and possibly physical death), continue until all their conventional arsenal is depleted (= same as above, just later), or resort to nukes (= likely destruction by NATO).
- HyperSane 4y agoWhat would Ukraine do with them?
- causality0 4y agoSame thing everyone else does: point at them and say "you can never take our capitol without far more casualties than it is worth".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwaway742 4y agoThere was that time that 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium went "missing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair
- fomine3 4y agoUS wanted to bring nukes to bases in Japan, but Japan's nuclear policy denies bringing nukes (in officially. it wasn't denied under the hood).