6 ms·

Crazy how you can ruin a nations reputation in weeks..

by JaggerJo 2y ago

rapind 2y ago
Everyone's about to get nukes now. What could go wrong.
- ozmodiar 2y ago
  You're not joking, a lot of people I talk to have gone from anti nuke to hard pro nuke. I can see the future having a lot more nukes in it now that there's no reliable world order to believe in.
  - jopsen 2y ago
    I doubt Denmark will get nukes, nor am I sure I'd be in favor of nukes. But I can see the argument that having the ability to nuke 50m Russians might deter them from attacking 5m Danes. And I'd personally hate to sit in a trench. Which is a real risk if Russia attacks the Baltics and only half of NATO shows up. So maybe we should get nukes and preposition them in the Baltics. I'm sure our politicians wouldn't want to :)
    - preisschild 2y ago
      > I doubt Denmark will get nukes, nor am I sure I'd be in favor of nukes. Ideally, we'd have an EU military that takes control of nuclear weapons for example and automatically use them to retaliate when enemy nuclear weapons are launched against EU territory.
      - jajko 2y ago
        Yeah not with Orban or Fico involved, those are both hardened criminals involved in murders too. Subverting EU is their morning activity. I'd say no EU country should rely on full defense from the rest, each big one should start on their own in hardcore mode: drones, more heavy drones, optic cable drones, drone swarms and then artillery, ammunition for it and air defense (probably the hardest), then the rest. Himars is cool tech but thats a very expensive tech to develop and certainly in current numbers doesn't affect outcome of war. License/buy tech from ukrainians since they have best hands one warfare experience from whole europe, setup manufacturing with them, helping them and ourselves. What should be shared ie nuclear stuff thats too much for a single country. Silos with main manufacturing, copied elsewhere in smaller numbers. Defense can be good business, just look at US after WWII, not happy that we are heading in that direction but there is no other way if we want to keep freedom. I've grown up behind uron curtain oppressed by soviets cough cough russians, and let me tell you, many people died trying to escape to that freedom. Its invaluable once you don't have it, not to everybody but to many.
- nanotuber 2y ago
  Disagree with the implication here and expect the opposite. Ukraine peace (even an imperfect one) allows the US and Russia to work together to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. Ukraine won't get nukes in either scenario. An ongoing war forces Russia to rely on Iran, limiting its ability to work with US (and China), on isolating its nuclear program. DPRK nukes already exist and ROK is pressuring the US for permission for them (neither Biden or Trump want to give them). I don't know of any other latent nuclear states.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    DPRK redoubled its nuclear program and shut down disarmament talks when Kim saw Saddam Hussein get regime-changed after he willingly cooperated with UN inspectors to show that there were no WMDs. They realized that cooperating doesn't get you anywhere and the only insurance is through nukes. Now Ukraine, which gave up its warheads, is seeing the same thing. And even Canadians are starting to discuss a nuclear guarantee. Yes, we are going to see more nuclear states. It may not happen overnight but the status quo won't hold either.
    - nanotuber 2y ago
      The implication is that nuclear proliferation is linked to the US pausing Ukraine aid. That's a gross mischaracterization. I'll bet you 10 to 1 that Ukraine won't end up with nukes.
      - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
        Ukraine might not, at this point, because it may be too late for them under whatever heavy-handed peace deal gets imposed. It's all the other would-be Ukraines who are going to make nukes. Finland, Poland, South Korea, Taiwan... Better safe than sorry.
        nanotuber 2y ago
        I'll buy you a beer if any of these regions have a nuke in 10 years.

Crazy how you can ruin a nations reputation in weeks..

rapind 2y ago

Everyone's about to get nukes now. What could go wrong.

ozmodiar 2y ago
You're not joking, a lot of people I talk to have gone from anti nuke to hard pro nuke. I can see the future having a lot more nukes in it now that there's no reliable world order to believe in.
- jopsen 2y ago
  I doubt Denmark will get nukes, nor am I sure I'd be in favor of nukes. But I can see the argument that having the ability to nuke 50m Russians might deter them from attacking 5m Danes. And I'd personally hate to sit in a trench. Which is a real risk if Russia attacks the Baltics and only half of NATO shows up. So maybe we should get nukes and preposition them in the Baltics. I'm sure our politicians wouldn't want to :)
  - preisschild 2y ago
    > I doubt Denmark will get nukes, nor am I sure I'd be in favor of nukes. Ideally, we'd have an EU military that takes control of nuclear weapons for example and automatically use them to retaliate when enemy nuclear weapons are launched against EU territory.
    - jajko 2y ago
      Yeah not with Orban or Fico involved, those are both hardened criminals involved in murders too. Subverting EU is their morning activity. I'd say no EU country should rely on full defense from the rest, each big one should start on their own in hardcore mode: drones, more heavy drones, optic cable drones, drone swarms and then artillery, ammunition for it and air defense (probably the hardest), then the rest. Himars is cool tech but thats a very expensive tech to develop and certainly in current numbers doesn't affect outcome of war. License/buy tech from ukrainians since they have best hands one warfare experience from whole europe, setup manufacturing with them, helping them and ourselves. What should be shared ie nuclear stuff thats too much for a single country. Silos with main manufacturing, copied elsewhere in smaller numbers. Defense can be good business, just look at US after WWII, not happy that we are heading in that direction but there is no other way if we want to keep freedom. I've grown up behind uron curtain oppressed by soviets cough cough russians, and let me tell you, many people died trying to escape to that freedom. Its invaluable once you don't have it, not to everybody but to many.
nanotuber 2y ago
Disagree with the implication here and expect the opposite. Ukraine peace (even an imperfect one) allows the US and Russia to work together to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. Ukraine won't get nukes in either scenario. An ongoing war forces Russia to rely on Iran, limiting its ability to work with US (and China), on isolating its nuclear program. DPRK nukes already exist and ROK is pressuring the US for permission for them (neither Biden or Trump want to give them). I don't know of any other latent nuclear states.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  DPRK redoubled its nuclear program and shut down disarmament talks when Kim saw Saddam Hussein get regime-changed after he willingly cooperated with UN inspectors to show that there were no WMDs. They realized that cooperating doesn't get you anywhere and the only insurance is through nukes. Now Ukraine, which gave up its warheads, is seeing the same thing. And even Canadians are starting to discuss a nuclear guarantee. Yes, we are going to see more nuclear states. It may not happen overnight but the status quo won't hold either.
  - nanotuber 2y ago
    The implication is that nuclear proliferation is linked to the US pausing Ukraine aid. That's a gross mischaracterization. I'll bet you 10 to 1 that Ukraine won't end up with nukes.
    - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      Ukraine might not, at this point, because it may be too late for them under whatever heavy-handed peace deal gets imposed. It's all the other would-be Ukraines who are going to make nukes. Finland, Poland, South Korea, Taiwan... Better safe than sorry.
      - nanotuber 2y ago
        I'll buy you a beer if any of these regions have a nuke in 10 years.