4 ms·

> Nukes are such a double-edged sword. If nuclear proliferation continues, I wonder if the MAD doctrine will even work. Now that the USA has thrown up a giant

> Nukes are such a double-edged sword. If nuclear proliferation continues, I wonder if the MAD doctrine will even work. Now that the USA has thrown up a giant middle finger to Europe & NATO, it sure seems like more countries are going to have to make their own nuclear weapons. No one is coming to help you Poland; that's the new American stance. So everyone start proliferating! It absolutely makes the situation much much much harder to manage. Now, and in a longer term as nations go through their own fits & tantrums over time. As, we see, happens.

drysine 2y ago
>No one is coming to help you Poland; that's the new American stance. That's how the rest of the world lives praying that the US doesn't bomb them because they are not "democratic" enough.
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  After world war 2, the US has never used anywhere near our real might. The cries that we are the terror here seems irredeemably false, propaganda at best. I find it gross as hell, but the "switchblade" drones we have favored have basically no collateral damage. And Biden stopped the drone warfare almost entirely. It's unclear to me what the complaint really is. I don't see it.
  - drysine 2y ago
    >After world war 2, the US has never used anywhere near our real might. The cries that we are the terror here seems irredeemably false Wait, are you asking to appreciate that the US stopped nuking cities?
  - defrost 2y ago
    Might be the birth defects from Agent Orange, the running children with napalm stuck to them, the tens of thousands of bomblets across several SE Asian contries, selling drugs to US citizens to fund weapons sales to groups destabilising other governments, . . . There's an entire laundry list of legit complaints about post WWII US actions. Made up weapons of mass destruction, ... it keeps on going. You can shrug all that off, sure, but there's certainly justification for others to see the US as a source of terror.
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
France is in Europe and NATO no? They might not have enough nukes to end the world, but they have more than enough to kill 90% of the population.
- ojbyrne 2y ago
  The UK also has nukes.
- wat10000 2y ago
  Will France nuke Russia to retaliate for Russia nuking Poland? If I were a Pole, I'd be very hesitant to rely on that. (The US too, even before the current administration, but at least I'd know the US could trash the Russian military by conventional means.)
  - toast0 2y ago
    It's not the same France, but 1938 France, along with England came to the Munich Agreement with Italy and Germany to let Germany annex part of Czechoslovakia, despite France and Czechoslovakia having a mutual assistance pact. Ukraine's Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances doesn't seem to have gotten them much in the way of territorial integrity either. If I were bordering Russia or any other state that seems interested in expanding its borders, I'd be concerned that international agreements might not deter such expansion and wonder what could be done. Obtaining the means for MAD seems reasonable, although the costs are high and perhaps unjustifiable.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      Note that the Budapest Memorandum didn’t obligate anybody to defend anybody, just to refrain from attacking.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
bluGill 2y ago
England And France have long had nuclear bombs of their own. Other countries have made them. Iran and Israel officially don't have them, but everyone knows that at minimum they can have them in months if they want them (and they may have them). It is a big engineering task, but not something impossible for nearly any country if they really want to (but in general it costs more than they are worth and so isn't worth it) Even today, the vast majority of your military spending should be in something else. Precision targeted small explosives generally get the job you need done much better that destroy the whole earth.
- JohnBooty 2y ago
  Precision targeted small explosives generally get the job you need done much better that destroy the whole earth. Right, but if your foe can afford more precision targeted small explosives, then nukes start looking attractive to the North Koreas of the world.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Not really. There are a lot of hints that anyone who used nukes will be wiped off the earth if they ever use them. Nukes are useful to North Korea to show they can make them - that is bragging rights, not generally not useful in war.
- NikkiA 2y ago
  We (UK) long gave up our nuclear sovereignty, we've relied entirely upon warheads we rent from the US since the 90s, since 1970 if you consider our Polaris subs and WE177 bombs to have been the same deal - we claimed to have autonomy over the warheads, but it's questionable; Blue Steel was the last, true, british nuclear weapon - and even that used a modified W28 warhead, but they were at least 'home built'.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > We (UK) long gave up our nuclear sovereignty, we've relied entirely upon warheads we rent from the US since the 90s, since 1970 if you consider our Polaris subs and WE177 bombs to have been the same deal - we claimed to have autonomy over the warheads, but it's questionable. I think you got it backwards - the warheads are still British-made, they're stuck on top of US missiles.

drysine 2y ago

>No one is coming to help you Poland; that's the new American stance. That's how the rest of the world lives praying that the US doesn't bomb them because they are not "democratic" enough.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago
After world war 2, the US has never used anywhere near our real might. The cries that we are the terror here seems irredeemably false, propaganda at best. I find it gross as hell, but the "switchblade" drones we have favored have basically no collateral damage. And Biden stopped the drone warfare almost entirely. It's unclear to me what the complaint really is. I don't see it.
- drysine 2y ago
  >After world war 2, the US has never used anywhere near our real might. The cries that we are the terror here seems irredeemably false Wait, are you asking to appreciate that the US stopped nuking cities?
- defrost 2y ago
  Might be the birth defects from Agent Orange, the running children with napalm stuck to them, the tens of thousands of bomblets across several SE Asian contries, selling drugs to US citizens to fund weapons sales to groups destabilising other governments, . . . There's an entire laundry list of legit complaints about post WWII US actions. Made up weapons of mass destruction, ... it keeps on going. You can shrug all that off, sure, but there's certainly justification for others to see the US as a source of terror.

ApolloFortyNine 2y ago

France is in Europe and NATO no? They might not have enough nukes to end the world, but they have more than enough to kill 90% of the population.

ojbyrne 2y ago
The UK also has nukes.
wat10000 2y ago
Will France nuke Russia to retaliate for Russia nuking Poland? If I were a Pole, I'd be very hesitant to rely on that. (The US too, even before the current administration, but at least I'd know the US could trash the Russian military by conventional means.)
- toast0 2y ago
  It's not the same France, but 1938 France, along with England came to the Munich Agreement with Italy and Germany to let Germany annex part of Czechoslovakia, despite France and Czechoslovakia having a mutual assistance pact. Ukraine's Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances doesn't seem to have gotten them much in the way of territorial integrity either. If I were bordering Russia or any other state that seems interested in expanding its borders, I'd be concerned that international agreements might not deter such expansion and wonder what could be done. Obtaining the means for MAD seems reasonable, although the costs are high and perhaps unjustifiable.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    Note that the Budapest Memorandum didn’t obligate anybody to defend anybody, just to refrain from attacking.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

bluGill 2y ago

England And France have long had nuclear bombs of their own. Other countries have made them. Iran and Israel officially don't have them, but everyone knows that at minimum they can have them in months if they want them (and they may have them). It is a big engineering task, but not something impossible for nearly any country if they really want to (but in general it costs more than they are worth and so isn't worth it) Even today, the vast majority of your military spending should be in something else. Precision targeted small explosives generally get the job you need done much better that destroy the whole earth.

JohnBooty 2y ago
Precision targeted small explosives generally get the job you need done much better that destroy the whole earth. Right, but if your foe can afford more precision targeted small explosives, then nukes start looking attractive to the North Koreas of the world.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Not really. There are a lot of hints that anyone who used nukes will be wiped off the earth if they ever use them. Nukes are useful to North Korea to show they can make them - that is bragging rights, not generally not useful in war.
NikkiA 2y ago
We (UK) long gave up our nuclear sovereignty, we've relied entirely upon warheads we rent from the US since the 90s, since 1970 if you consider our Polaris subs and WE177 bombs to have been the same deal - we claimed to have autonomy over the warheads, but it's questionable; Blue Steel was the last, true, british nuclear weapon - and even that used a modified W28 warhead, but they were at least 'home built'.
- lmm 2y ago
  > We (UK) long gave up our nuclear sovereignty, we've relied entirely upon warheads we rent from the US since the 90s, since 1970 if you consider our Polaris subs and WE177 bombs to have been the same deal - we claimed to have autonomy over the warheads, but it's questionable. I think you got it backwards - the warheads are still British-made, they're stuck on top of US missiles.