6 ms·
Maybe not well known, but during the 20th century a number of nations started a nuclear weapons program, but then were convinced to halt the work by security gu
by snowwrestler 2y ago
Maybe not well known, but during the 20th century a number of nations started a nuclear weapons program, but then were convinced to halt the work by security guarantees by the U.S.
You better believe that every single one of those nations is now revisiting that decision.
For those wondering if Italy can afford to build nuclear: their economy is larger than Russia’s. As is Brazil’s, another nation that put nuclear weapons on hold per U.S. request.
- nazgob 2y agoKorea is probably the list as well.
- ttoinou 2y agoNo their economy is not larger than Russia, this is a common trope among people whose only way to reach reality is to irrationally use statistics computed by bureaucrats
- mpweiher 2y agoActually: it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
- lovegrenoble 2y agoWhile CNN's assertion that Russia's economy is on par with Italy's in nominal GDP may be technically accurate, it does not fully consider the economic nuances that are crucial to a comprehensive analysis. This is an example of propaganda.
- Hnrobert42 2y agoI don't understand why you are so animated by this issue. What am I missing? Propaganda about what?
- mpweiher 2y agoWell, if it is [technically] correct, then it's obviously not "propaganda", but simply the truth. Now you obviously can argue that there should be other considerations, but that is your argument and interpretation, not the obvious truth that the actual data needs to be judged against.
- echoangle 2y agoJust to be pedantic, propaganda doesn't have to be false.
- mpweiher 2y ago"The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." Citing a correct fact about the world is not propaganda, as facts are neither doctrine nor "reflect views".
- echoangle 2y agoYou can cite facts to provoke an emotional response and make people sympathetic to your ideology. That's propaganda. > Citing a correct fact about the world is not propaganda, as facts are neither doctrine nor "reflect views". It says "propagation of doctrine" and facts can be used to propagate a doctrine. Edit: Here's a definition from Wikipedia: > NATO's 2011 guidance for military public affairs defines propaganda as "information, ideas, doctrines, or special appeals disseminated to influence the opinion, emotions, attitudes, or behaviour of any specified group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Definitions Does that sound like the information has to be false to be propaganda?
- mpweiher 2y agoI didn't say that.
- dahart 2y agoThe WP link shows sourced data from the IMF and World Bank. Why did you respond to that with an unsourced claim this is CNN’s assertion? The GDP ranking involves all countries. So whose propaganda is it, and what’s the motivation? If it’s technically accurate that Italy ranks above Russia by GDP then what’s the basis for calling it propaganda? Typically propaganda is nationalistic and spreading false information within a country and being used to justify a country’s moves against another, not international verifiable facts that are technically accurate and not being used to justify some action. GDP is a single summary metric, not a comprehensive analysis. It’s entirely possible that Russia’s and Italy’s rankings could swap when using a different economic metric. That certainly doesn’t mean GDP rankings are propaganda.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ttoinou 2y agoYour assumptions are wrong. GDP does not mean anything in real life
- FrancisMoodie 2y agoHuh, so you're claiming that GDP data and such is not correct? Any source on that? Because I see multiple sources reporting that in 2023 the GDP of Russia was $2,009,959M and that of Italy was $2,300,941M, although Italy has a higher debt %. Which would confirm the original posters claim considering Italy is a much, much smaller country than Russia. What I find a common trope is people claiming facts are incorrect without stating proof.
- antirez 2y agoWhen discussing debt you need to factor in the interesting fact that people in Italy have savings sleeping on the bank that basically counter weight the debt.
- xybercow 2y agoAt the start of Feb 2025 USD was 100 RUB, a few days ago it was 85 RUB. Does this mean their nominal GDP grew by 15% in one month? In some cases it's fine to use Nominal GDP while in other cases, you should use GDP PPP instead. When you look at PPP figures, Russia's economy is on par with Germany or Japan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) Anders Puck Nielsen just published an interesting video on this topic [How does Russia's military spending compare to Europe?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxq-TvgNCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxq-TvgNCBU)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> When you look at PPP figures, Russia's economy is on par with Germany or Japan The Russian economy cannot produce half of what Germany or Japan can. That means they have to import it. Which means the truth is somewhere between PPP and nominal GDP. (The simplest statistical treatment is to PPP domestic industries and nominalise imports, but that’s really an analysis one must do oneself as the assumptions are too numerous for convincing someone who’s already concluded adversely.)
- snailmailstare 2y ago> Does this mean their nominal GDP grew by 15% in one month? If they could keep selling in rubles without a fall in exports or prices then the month's contribution to GDP was 15% higher than the previous one. That doesn't seem very confusing.
- snailmailstare 2y agoApologies to Mr Kurzweil, but I think the reality on the ground is that the cost of research into keeping an aging population alive is a raised risk of Armageddon. The political tendencies in older age demographics is bad, the politicians surviving so many decades after a first to leadership position is bad, the billionaires living long enough to find whacky ideas or even directly manipulate politics instead of gifting money to charities is catastrophic, etc.
- ModernMech 2y agoActually I believe a not small part of what's happening now is boomer politicians who have been in power too long realizing their time is coming to an end one way or another, and they are refusing to give it up to the younger generations. Trump and Putin in particular have every reason to be as unreasonable as possible if they believe either way there is no future for them if they stop.
- snailmailstare 2y agoThese people should not expect to be alive in 10 years so if a trick for getting a few more months at the top means their country is nuked in 10-30 years, whatever.
- hoseja 2y agoGifting money to charities is way more catastrophic.
- carlcarlcarl 2y agoCould you elaborate?
- snailmailstare 2y agoIt's popular to talk about unintended consequences, and site the most egregious, but everything has unintended consequences on top of its intended consequences. The world without all of the billionaire attempts to make a good legacy for themselves would in fact include a lot less interesting things.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- trhway 2y agoThe world is lucky that Zelensky is the President of Ukraine and not somebody like me - given that Ukraine does have plutonium from its power plants, i'd be already making the warheads (technological difficulties? they were solved 80 years ago and with the modern tech the 3 years is more than enough to produce something working). That is also notable in the context of Trump yelling at Zelensky that Zelensky is supposedly playing with WW3. If anything, by not making nukes Zelensky shows an, unreasonable at my opinion, restraint here.
- libertine 2y agoHopefully this is already underway, and Ukraine has also the know how to build stuff that can deliver these payloads. They need to develop bunker busters though.
- trhway 2y agoI think the MAD would be enough. Russia has such a vast space (not possible to effectively cover with air defense), even if just European part, with so many legitimate targets without any need for bunker busters/etc., that just a test underground explosion showing that Ukraine got it would be enough for Russia to hit the brakes screeching. Btw, according to the Russian nuclear doctrine nukes can be used when the country is invaded even with just conventional weapons if the invasion presents severe threat to the country. Thus according to the Russian nuclear doctrine Ukraine is allowed to use nukes.
- libertine 2y agoThe bunker busters is more in line with the old "US doctrine" that was developed against terrorist leaders: a decapitation strike to the leader. Let's not forget these folks have their self preservation in first order, the population is just a means for their survival. That's why it's imperative for Ukraine to have bunker busters, like gravity bombs, because the first strike would need to be where the leadership is.
- pjc50 2y agoIt's very, very expensive and (until last week) it was critical to keep the US on side, which would be jeopardized by breaking the nonproliferation treaty. The MAD argument still applies: Ukraine can't threaten to nuke Moscow without Russia obviously threatening to retaliate with nukes.
- lovegrenoble 2y agoCan We Please Stop Comparing Russia’s Economy to Italy’s? Who's comparing Russia's economy to Italy's? Apparently Lindsay Graham did in 2014. CNN in 2022. I like this article because it made me think about Russia and it's economy in a way that I didn't fully appreciate before. The article calls out an argument that compares Russia's economy to Italy's economy, using nominal GDP as a measurement. This is supposed to be a Western attempt to brush off Russia as a small(er) player than it really is, but that is a skewed perspective. The use of nominal GDP, especially in times of conflict (and war), does not fully encompass all of the resources that a country is capable of summoning and utilizing. Russia's oil and gas resources, as well as production in wheat, corn, and other earth metals provides it with "substantial leverage" on international markets. Furthermore, when the measurement used to compare the GDP is purchasing power parity (PPP), Russia's economy is more like that of Germany, than Italy. Taken together, the PPP and Russia's domestic production capability, and it seems to make sense why Russia's economy has not completely faltered in the face of sanctions imposed by the West. Could we say the same for Italy? Or even Germany?So all though, CNN is not wrong to make the claim that Russia's economy is equivalent to Italy's in nominal GDP, that comparison fails to take into account the economics of reality. And that's the very definition of propaganda.
- Nux 2y agoWell said, this kind of comparisons always bugged me.
- mrighele 2y ago> Taken together, the PPP and Russia's domestic production capability What does exactly Russia produces ? Most of GDP of Russia comes from export of natural resources [1]. This is by design: raw material extraction can be managed even by corrupt friends of the government even with a lot of "inefficiencies"; meanwhile higher level production is left to languish on purpose since it would be a potential vector for others to gain wealth and power (most of the oil infrastructure in Russia is serviced by western tools, for example). Up to a few years ago I would have added weapons to the list, but it seems to me that they can't produce quality weapons anymore, there are very few moderns Russian weapons in use in Ukraine, for example. [1] https://www.tradeimex.in/blogs/russia-top-10-exports https://www.tradeimex.in/blogs/russia-top-10-exports
- mpweiher 2y agoExactly. The US nuclear umbrella was not charity, contrary what some in the US appear to believe. It was and is a pure power play. Another little tidbit that is not generally well-known is that the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) actually requires the current nuclear powers to get rid of their nuclear weapons...eventually.
- pfdietz 2y agoYou're going to see just how much of an act of charity it was when it's withdrawn.
- mpweiher 2y agoCharity ≠ one side of a quid-pro-quo was worthless. The US gave/gives something that is fairly easy for it to provide, and valuable to the other side. In return the US receives something that is of great value to it and fairly easy for the other side to provide (as long as the US keeps its side of the bargain). If US security guarantees turn out to be worthless, you will see a lot more nuclear powers as well as a drastic increase in conventional capabilities. The US will then be one power among many, rather than a mostly unchallenged superpower.
- pfdietz 2y agoIt's charity. The US spent the equivalent of many trillions of current dollars on nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and those under the US nuclear umbrella didn't have to. Withdrawal of that umbrella will mean these countries will then have to pony up money to replace it. What did the US receive in return for this? Gratitude isn't worth much.
- jsiepkes 2y agothe Netherlands has nukes in loan from the US. They are at Volkel Airbase. Officially it's a secret, but it's common knowledge and was also confirmed by a former prime-minister. In exchange for these loaned nuclear weapons the Netherlands promised not to develop nuclear weapons of their own. With the US now showing they are not afraid of doing a "rug pull" on agreements, one starts to wonder if the Netherlands shouldn't start development of nuclear weapons again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkel_Air_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkel_Air_Base
- lifeinthevoid 2y agoAre the Netherlands able to control these devices? I would be very surprised if that were the case.
- throwaway48476 2y agoCodes are not given and are only in America.
- pavlov 2y agoSince DOGE has wrecked any semblance of data security in the US government, we can assume the codes are also in Moscow by now.
- speed_spread 2y agoWas DOGE able to affect the Pentagon or three-lettered security agencies yet? I would assume anything defense-related is kept separate from civilian government structures and may not be as collapsible. Some may even have internal plans to defend against a take over from the top.
- gpderetta 2y agoThe code is 00000000 anyway!
- mordae 2y ago
- rob74 2y agoBTW, Ukraine already had nuclear weapons, but agreed to give them up for security guarantees by the US, the UK, France and Russia (!) in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- cratermoon 2y agoVery technically speaking Ukraine didn't have a nuclear weapons program the way we speak of China or India having one. What they had was nuclear weapons left over when the Soviet Union collapsed.
- snowwrestler 2y agoU.S. support of Ukraine fulfills a commitment we signed, and which Russia broke. The U.S. president doesn’t seem to care about international commitments, though. How does that work out in the long run? Would you do business with someone who tells you up front that they might break any promise they make?
- flanked-evergl 2y agoThere is no binding commitment that the US broke. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact.
- tim333 2y agoNot legally binding perhaps. > Clinton and Yeltsin did promise Ukraine “full guarantees of security, as a sign of friendship and good neighborliness.” The two leaders also reaffirmed “the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” including Ukraine. Still - guess you have to check the small print.
- flanked-evergl 2y agoI'm not even sure they broke any non-binding agreements. But do share any if I'm wrong, I really would like to know. The words you quoted came out of Yeltsin's mouth, not Clintons: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/30921-document-9-memorandum-conversation-trilateral-meeting-president-yeltsin-russia https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/30921-document-9-memorand...
- throwaway48476 2y agoHere's a list of countries with a nuclear industry but no nuclear weapons program. Taiwan South Korea Japan Germany Sweden Italy UK (not counting trident) Ukraine
- account42 2y agoWhat nuclear industry does Germany have?
- FirmwareBurner 2y agoNuclear dismantling industry
- throwaway48476 2y agoThe map I found says there's still a couple operating reactors.
- slightwinder 2y agoThey are not operating anymore. Last 3 were shutdown last(?) year. They are now being dismantled. Though, there is research done, but mainly fusion, and some Fusion-reactors. Doesn't help with weapons, but might be your map is not specific enough about this?
- tored 2y agoSweden had nuclear weapons program and was only six months away from completing a working bomb in 1965. Program was abandoned in 1966. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_prog...
- throwaway48476 2y agoSweden was far closer than that and only gave up its plutonium in 1990.
- harolddd 2y ago[flagged]
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoYep - Trump's actions are going to weaken the US's position on the world stage by pushing everyone else to provide for themselves what they had previously got from the US (security, advanced compute, etc). Trump appears to only think in short term transactional way - no long term strategy.
- Fidelix 2y ago> pushing everyone else to provide for themselves what they had previously got from the US Did you write this, review it, then post it as if that's a bad thing? wow edit: grammar
- haswell 2y agoYes, potentially a very bad thing if it accelerates isolationist policies and further erodes US/world relations. The sentiment I’ve seen increasingly that goes something like “but they’re freeloading” completely misses the nuance of decades of foreign policy and why the interdependence between allies and enemies alike has maintained relative peace. If you’re worried about world wars, you should worry about the US undermining itself.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoThe US has previously worked to help reduce nuclear proliferation partly by offering security in exchange (e.g. Budapest Memorandum whereby Ukraine gave up their nukes). Of course there's a short term (& short sighted?) benefit to the US if it can reduce the military budget significantly, and/or redeploy assets from supporting NATO partners to areas felt to be more important to current US interests, BUT this comes at a cost ... NATO members, and others - like Ukraine - believing themselves to be under a US security umbrella will now realize that such promises mean little to nothing - having an expiration date at the end of the US administration that negotiated them - and they have to take care of themselves. Is it really in the US's long term interest to have ROW more heavily militarized and more countries developing/proliferating nuclear weapons for their own protection? As far as technology goes, putting a hard embargo on US exports of AI-supporting hardware is only going to further accelerate China's push to develop home-grown alternatives, and in a world where the US is isolating itself and new alliances are forming, such as China-Russia, this means that future US attempts to prevent cutting edge technology getting into the hands of others will be increasingly futile since these non-US alliances will support each other. An isolated USA is in the end a weaker USA.
- otikik 2y agoI believe the article is about nuclear energy, not weapons, though.
- csouzaf 2y agoBrazil simply does not have any leverage in the matter. The country almost conducted the first test in Serra do Cachimbo, but the hole where the nuke was to be detoneted was closed by the former president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serra_do_Cachimbo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serra_do_Cachimbo
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]