4 ms·

I am uncertain that more nuclear weapons in the hands of more groups will ultimately lead to more safety. While I understand the desire for self defense and MAD

I am uncertain that more nuclear weapons in the hands of more groups will ultimately lead to more safety. While I understand the desire for self defense and MAD, it only takes the dissolving of one nation into a radical group with a truly unhinged leader to then have the power to wipe millions of the face of the earth. Rolling more dice seems like it makes nuclear apocalypse more likely.

simion314 3y ago
>I am uncertain that more nuclear weapons in the hands of more groups will ultimately lead to more safety. Try to tell Ukraine this, if they had nukes then a lot of people would be alive. But I understand your point if your country already has nukes or it does not have imperialist/aggressive countries as neighbors. But to get protected from the insane empire neighbor IMo this days you do not longer need super complex rockets, a ton of small drones with dirty bombs in it wold also do a good job preventing an invasion, you need to first prove the world how effective it is.
zirgs 3y ago
You people already tried this in 1994. Ukraine gave up their nukes and got invaded anyway. Good luck convincing any other country to give up their nukes. If NK has nukes then why can't SK and Japan have some too?
- robviren 3y ago
  I do not question the effectiveness of deterring with nuclear weapons. It would be great if Ukraine had nuclear weapons... for now. How long till a nation state becomes unstable. How long can any entity remain in control of itself. Hell, I don't trust my own country the US to have these weapons and we have the longest track record of not ending the world. But at some point there will be revolution on every country. My source is all of human history. One radical group getting ahold of these weapons with actual intent to use them is all it takes to change the face of the world.
  - zirgs 3y ago
    The USSR had lots of nukes. And then it collapsed. Nobody launched the nukes.

simion314 3y ago

>I am uncertain that more nuclear weapons in the hands of more groups will ultimately lead to more safety. Try to tell Ukraine this, if they had nukes then a lot of people would be alive. But I understand your point if your country already has nukes or it does not have imperialist/aggressive countries as neighbors. But to get protected from the insane empire neighbor IMo this days you do not longer need super complex rockets, a ton of small drones with dirty bombs in it wold also do a good job preventing an invasion, you need to first prove the world how effective it is.

zirgs 3y ago

You people already tried this in 1994. Ukraine gave up their nukes and got invaded anyway. Good luck convincing any other country to give up their nukes. If NK has nukes then why can't SK and Japan have some too?

robviren 3y ago
I do not question the effectiveness of deterring with nuclear weapons. It would be great if Ukraine had nuclear weapons... for now. How long till a nation state becomes unstable. How long can any entity remain in control of itself. Hell, I don't trust my own country the US to have these weapons and we have the longest track record of not ending the world. But at some point there will be revolution on every country. My source is all of human history. One radical group getting ahold of these weapons with actual intent to use them is all it takes to change the face of the world.
- zirgs 3y ago
  The USSR had lots of nukes. And then it collapsed. Nobody launched the nukes.