4 ms·

They could start a joint nuclear program with Ukraine. Canada has the Canadian shield which is rich in Uranium. Both Canada and Ukraine get nukes (Ukraine has

They could start a joint nuclear program with Ukraine. Canada has the Canadian shield which is rich in Uranium. Both Canada and Ukraine get nukes (Ukraine has a bridge that needs blowing up), Ukraine gets safety, Canada gets huge reputation gains in trade with Ukraine. NB: Ukraine will be the fastest growing western economy post war for at least a decade or two.

selimthegrim 2y ago
Andrei Codrescu is spinning in place right about now.
Gunnerhead 2y ago
Nukes for everyone yay! Hey Georgia is also under Russian threat, why don’t they also get a nuke or two? Then maybe their neighbor Armenia will think to themselves “why not me, I’m also under threat by an ex-Soviet country”? Then maybe Azerbaijan, then Turkey, then Saudi Arabia, everyone gets a nuke, I freaking love it! Then maybe other countries that got invaded by a bigger power like maybe Vietnam? Iraq? Why not!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Is it time finally to give Cuba some nuclear weapons.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  I mean...why not? What moral right does the US have to nuclear weapons that others don't? US exceptionalism? Just looking at what is happening in the US right now -- an astonishingly corrupt banana republic increasingly led by an insane Christian nationalist movement that bizarrely doesn't seem to understand a thing about Christ's teachings -- I have more faith in North Korea's management of nuclear weapons than the US. Nuclear non-proliferation relied upon a global order where borders were fixed and there was in essence an international law and detente. Now we have an America openly musing about militarily taking countries and land as if it's just casual talk. Yes, everyone should have nuclear weapons. And many of them should be pointed at US cities. The US is undeniably the most dangerous nation on Earth right now, and has lost any and all credibility as a rational player.
  - p2detar 2y ago
    Exactly. I can bet that every country on the world having a nuclear bomb would actually make the world a safer place. We are still primitive, so the threat of us being destroyed at any time should keep us at bay. No country that holds nukes should be considered a pillar of morality. That's stupid beyond belief.
  - almatabata 2y ago
    That is assuming everyone has a working survival instinct. Religious fanatics notoriously do not have this instinct. You just need one country with a religious fanatic at its head, who thinks that it is better we all go to heaven than to let evil win, and boom. Now you can you argue the current US president is a fanatic if you want. But I do not see how adding more bombs to more countries reduces the odds of nuclear warfare in the future. The current equilibrium has worked well enough. I do not see why we need to hand over nuclear weapons to countries currently embroiled in bloody civil wars.
  - dinkumthinkum 2y ago
    Where is this ruling insane Christian nationalist movement? I don't see one. Are you just talking about people that think men are physically more dominant at sports and other physical activities, that is insane? I think that's what all of the world thought for thousands of years and probably 99% or more of people in the world think today. This is just more the Henny Penny stuff that I don't think helps the left much.
    - mckn1ght 2y ago
      The Christian nationalist movement are the people saying things like “Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason, and that reason was to save our country and to restore America to greatness” - Trump
      - dinkumthinkum 2y ago
        That’s not “Christian nationalism”. Sorry. That’s a pretty light religious take on a life or death event; that’s pretty milquetoast.
- Grosvenor 2y ago
  That's the direction things are going, yes. It's being made clear that the old rules no longer apply, and that might makes right. What's more mightier than a nuke? Would Ukraine have been invaded if it had nukes? Unlikely. Will trump invade Canada? The odds are >0%, so nukes are pretty good defense mechanism.

selimthegrim 2y ago

Andrei Codrescu is spinning in place right about now.

Gunnerhead 2y ago

Nukes for everyone yay! Hey Georgia is also under Russian threat, why don’t they also get a nuke or two? Then maybe their neighbor Armenia will think to themselves “why not me, I’m also under threat by an ex-Soviet country”? Then maybe Azerbaijan, then Turkey, then Saudi Arabia, everyone gets a nuke, I freaking love it! Then maybe other countries that got invaded by a bigger power like maybe Vietnam? Iraq? Why not!

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Ekaros 2y ago
Is it time finally to give Cuba some nuclear weapons.
llm_nerd 2y ago
I mean...why not? What moral right does the US have to nuclear weapons that others don't? US exceptionalism? Just looking at what is happening in the US right now -- an astonishingly corrupt banana republic increasingly led by an insane Christian nationalist movement that bizarrely doesn't seem to understand a thing about Christ's teachings -- I have more faith in North Korea's management of nuclear weapons than the US. Nuclear non-proliferation relied upon a global order where borders were fixed and there was in essence an international law and detente. Now we have an America openly musing about militarily taking countries and land as if it's just casual talk. Yes, everyone should have nuclear weapons. And many of them should be pointed at US cities. The US is undeniably the most dangerous nation on Earth right now, and has lost any and all credibility as a rational player.
- p2detar 2y ago
  Exactly. I can bet that every country on the world having a nuclear bomb would actually make the world a safer place. We are still primitive, so the threat of us being destroyed at any time should keep us at bay. No country that holds nukes should be considered a pillar of morality. That's stupid beyond belief.
- almatabata 2y ago
  That is assuming everyone has a working survival instinct. Religious fanatics notoriously do not have this instinct. You just need one country with a religious fanatic at its head, who thinks that it is better we all go to heaven than to let evil win, and boom. Now you can you argue the current US president is a fanatic if you want. But I do not see how adding more bombs to more countries reduces the odds of nuclear warfare in the future. The current equilibrium has worked well enough. I do not see why we need to hand over nuclear weapons to countries currently embroiled in bloody civil wars.
- dinkumthinkum 2y ago
  Where is this ruling insane Christian nationalist movement? I don't see one. Are you just talking about people that think men are physically more dominant at sports and other physical activities, that is insane? I think that's what all of the world thought for thousands of years and probably 99% or more of people in the world think today. This is just more the Henny Penny stuff that I don't think helps the left much.
  - mckn1ght 2y ago
    The Christian nationalist movement are the people saying things like “Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason, and that reason was to save our country and to restore America to greatness” - Trump
    - dinkumthinkum 2y ago
      That’s not “Christian nationalism”. Sorry. That’s a pretty light religious take on a life or death event; that’s pretty milquetoast.
Grosvenor 2y ago
That's the direction things are going, yes. It's being made clear that the old rules no longer apply, and that might makes right. What's more mightier than a nuke? Would Ukraine have been invaded if it had nukes? Unlikely. Will trump invade Canada? The odds are >0%, so nukes are pretty good defense mechanism.