3 ms·

> That cat's out of the bag, it has been common wisdom for decades that countries with nukes don't get invaded and other deterrents aren't nearly as effective o

by _kbh_ 3y ago

> That cat's out of the bag, it has been common wisdom for decades that countries with nukes don't get invaded and other deterrents aren't nearly as effective or economical. Mutually assured destruction is one of the biggest reasons the world's been so peaceful recently. No major wars, just various nuclear powers occasionally invading various non-nuclear powers. MAD is mad effective. Yes but you can still defeat a state that has nuclear weapons when they invade. If you try and change that that rhetoric by saying you can also only defend yourself when you have nuclear weapons then the entire dynamic changes and a lot more countries will start active nuclear weapons programs.

tempodox 3y ago
Why roll the dice when having nuclear weapons protects you from being invaded in the first place?
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Why roll the dice when having nuclear weapons protects you from being invaded in the first place? This how I feel a lot more countries will start feeling if Ukraine doesn't win or Russia successfully uses their nuclear blackmail to win or get concessions in the war.
  - Qem 3y ago
    They already felt that when they saw Iraq and Afghanistan being invaded, but not Pakistan or North Korea.
  - Synaesthesia 3y ago
    Wow a nuclear armed superpower invading a country, that's sure a sea-change for the world /s Look at what is happening in the world. Country after country standing up and saying they will continue to have their own relations with Russia, they see right through the hypocrisy of the west.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > Wow a nuclear armed superpower invading a country, that's sure a sea-change for the world /s A nuclear armed superpower threatening to nuke the country it invaded cause it's starting to lose a war, is certainly new when did that happen last?.
brabel 3y ago
> Yes but you can still defeat a state that has nuclear weapons when they invade. That's not at all clear in this case. EDIT: ... because they may be willing to use nukes when they realize they're losing. I think that explains why the West is not really going crazy about defending Ukraine... the West could do a hell of a lot more if it really wanted to, but maybe doing that would trigger desperate reactions from Russia as they've made it clear already many times that for them, losing this war is an "existential" threat (same words Ukrainians are using).
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > That's not at all clear in this case. the USSR has lot multiple wars against non nuclear armed states. so has the US. > EDIT: ... because they may be willing to use nukes when they realize they're losing. Welcome to the end of the Russian federation. Any use of a nuke would mean they lose both the war and their country collapses.
  - brabel 3y ago
    > Any use of a nuke would mean they lose both the war and their country collapses. How did you come up with that conclusion :D. That seems so hyperbolic as to be kind of funny. Only one country has used nuclear weapons to this day, and if we do like you did and extrapolate from past events, that went quite well for them.
    - salawat 3y ago
      Literally no one else had them at that time though. How much differently do you think things would have gone if Japan was also a nuclear state at the time? I'd seriously reconsider the logic pf your position.
      - defrost 3y ago
        As a point of note; you're arguing from (incomplete) hindsight. At the time it was known that * Germany had a nuclear weapons program. * Japan had a nuclear weapons program. * Russia, an ally, had contacts who were key personal in the US weapons program. * The UK MAUD group blueprinted the path to implementation and talked a reluctant USofA into development. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_progr... )

by _kbh_ 3y ago

tempodox 3y ago

Why roll the dice when having nuclear weapons protects you from being invaded in the first place?

_kbh_ 3y ago
> Why roll the dice when having nuclear weapons protects you from being invaded in the first place? This how I feel a lot more countries will start feeling if Ukraine doesn't win or Russia successfully uses their nuclear blackmail to win or get concessions in the war.
- Qem 3y ago
  They already felt that when they saw Iraq and Afghanistan being invaded, but not Pakistan or North Korea.
- Synaesthesia 3y ago
  Wow a nuclear armed superpower invading a country, that's sure a sea-change for the world /s Look at what is happening in the world. Country after country standing up and saying they will continue to have their own relations with Russia, they see right through the hypocrisy of the west.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Wow a nuclear armed superpower invading a country, that's sure a sea-change for the world /s A nuclear armed superpower threatening to nuke the country it invaded cause it's starting to lose a war, is certainly new when did that happen last?.

brabel 3y ago

> Yes but you can still defeat a state that has nuclear weapons when they invade. That's not at all clear in this case. EDIT: ... because they may be willing to use nukes when they realize they're losing. I think that explains why the West is not really going crazy about defending Ukraine... the West could do a hell of a lot more if it really wanted to, but maybe doing that would trigger desperate reactions from Russia as they've made it clear already many times that for them, losing this war is an "existential" threat (same words Ukrainians are using).

_kbh_ 3y ago
> That's not at all clear in this case. the USSR has lot multiple wars against non nuclear armed states. so has the US. > EDIT: ... because they may be willing to use nukes when they realize they're losing. Welcome to the end of the Russian federation. Any use of a nuke would mean they lose both the war and their country collapses.
- brabel 3y ago
  > Any use of a nuke would mean they lose both the war and their country collapses. How did you come up with that conclusion :D. That seems so hyperbolic as to be kind of funny. Only one country has used nuclear weapons to this day, and if we do like you did and extrapolate from past events, that went quite well for them.
  - salawat 3y ago
    Literally no one else had them at that time though. How much differently do you think things would have gone if Japan was also a nuclear state at the time? I'd seriously reconsider the logic pf your position.
    - defrost 3y ago
      As a point of note; you're arguing from (incomplete) hindsight. At the time it was known that * Germany had a nuclear weapons program. * Japan had a nuclear weapons program. * Russia, an ally, had contacts who were key personal in the US weapons program. * The UK MAUD group blueprinted the path to implementation and talked a reluctant USofA into development. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_progr... )