3 ms·

The US does not belong to the ICJ, so that judgement would only be valid if the US Supreme court would say so. I dislike a lot nuclear weapons but they are an e

The US does not belong to the ICJ, so that judgement would only be valid if the US Supreme court would say so. I dislike a lot nuclear weapons but they are an escalation deterrent like the humanity never had[1]. I hope they continue to be a deterrent but never ever launched in war. [1] If Ukraine kept the nuclear weapons post USSR collapse we probably would not have the war on Ukraine, lots of dangerous threats but nothing else.

krisoft 2y ago
> If Ukraine kept the nuclear weapons post USSR collapse we probably would not have the war on Ukraine, lots of dangerous threats but nothing else. If Ukraine tried to keep the nuclear weapons they would have been invaded within half an hour of that becoming apparent in or around 1994. They had no meaningful operational control over them, thus it would not have acted as a deterrent against that invasion. Yes, nukes are really potent deterrent. Ukraine's case is not the right one to show this. If you are looking for an example where nuclear deterrent works Russia's case is much better. They are badly bogged down in Ukraine. The reason why nobody dares to escalate and turn Moscow to rubble is because they have the nukes as a credible deterrent. All the tiptoeing around the range of missiles given to Ukraine and the constraints they have on not targeting Russia directly with them is due to that.
- roywiggins 2y ago
  And even if they'd held onto them, keeping them operational for three decades without a nuclear weapons program of their own would have been impossible. They would have had to spend a huge amount of money they didn't have to build the infrastructure to do it.
beeboobaa3 2y ago
> I hope they continue to be a deterrent but never ever launched in war. This is just naive. They'll become more and more common, and their usage is inevitable. In fact, the US has already used them in war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
darby_nine 2y ago
> they are an escalation deterrent Only until someone escalates! Or a sufficient number of sensors misfire concurrently, as I suppose that isn't quite what we refer to as escalation.
ta20240528 2y ago
The USA does belong to the ICJ and has since its inception (the USA not a member of the ICC - different court). Its just that after the invasion of Nicaragua in 1984 it decided to abide by the court "on a case to case basis". Russia also decided to ignore the ICJ in 2022. FWIW I agree that everyone should have nukes, there would be a lot fewer military adventures. But that's not the _current_ USA/UK/FR domestic* and international law. * ratified treaties become domestic law.
- ngcc_hk 2y ago
  Are you sure you meant everyone? Countries fall into disarray all the time. And there are totalitarian countries … It has some use and does prevent someone trying. But there is a downside to it that is too much. But for some cases like Taiwan or Ukraine …
  - ta20240528 2y ago
    > But for some cases like Taiwan or Ukraine … Yip, what about Guyana fending off Venzuela? Why can't they play? At some point its immoral to say "this level of security is only for us".

krisoft 2y ago

> If Ukraine kept the nuclear weapons post USSR collapse we probably would not have the war on Ukraine, lots of dangerous threats but nothing else. If Ukraine tried to keep the nuclear weapons they would have been invaded within half an hour of that becoming apparent in or around 1994. They had no meaningful operational control over them, thus it would not have acted as a deterrent against that invasion. Yes, nukes are really potent deterrent. Ukraine's case is not the right one to show this. If you are looking for an example where nuclear deterrent works Russia's case is much better. They are badly bogged down in Ukraine. The reason why nobody dares to escalate and turn Moscow to rubble is because they have the nukes as a credible deterrent. All the tiptoeing around the range of missiles given to Ukraine and the constraints they have on not targeting Russia directly with them is due to that.

roywiggins 2y ago
And even if they'd held onto them, keeping them operational for three decades without a nuclear weapons program of their own would have been impossible. They would have had to spend a huge amount of money they didn't have to build the infrastructure to do it.

beeboobaa3 2y ago

> I hope they continue to be a deterrent but never ever launched in war. This is just naive. They'll become more and more common, and their usage is inevitable. In fact, the US has already used them in war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...

darby_nine 2y ago

> they are an escalation deterrent Only until someone escalates! Or a sufficient number of sensors misfire concurrently, as I suppose that isn't quite what we refer to as escalation.

ta20240528 2y ago

The USA does belong to the ICJ and has since its inception (the USA not a member of the ICC - different court). Its just that after the invasion of Nicaragua in 1984 it decided to abide by the court "on a case to case basis". Russia also decided to ignore the ICJ in 2022. FWIW I agree that everyone should have nukes, there would be a lot fewer military adventures. But that's not the _current_ USA/UK/FR domestic* and international law. * ratified treaties become domestic law.

ngcc_hk 2y ago
Are you sure you meant everyone? Countries fall into disarray all the time. And there are totalitarian countries … It has some use and does prevent someone trying. But there is a downside to it that is too much. But for some cases like Taiwan or Ukraine …
- ta20240528 2y ago
  > But for some cases like Taiwan or Ukraine … Yip, what about Guyana fending off Venzuela? Why can't they play? At some point its immoral to say "this level of security is only for us".