6 ms·
Some folks are arguing even further, "Japan, South Korea, and Poland need nuclear weapons immediately": > The modern world is a place where nuclear-armed great
by throw0101d 2y ago
Some folks are arguing even further, "Japan, South Korea, and Poland need nuclear weapons immediately":
> The modern world is a place where nuclear-armed great powers, led by authoritarian leaders, often feel the impulse to bully smaller nations. If those smaller nations lack nuclear weapons, they lie prostrate and vulnerable at the feet of the bullies. But if they have nukes, they are much harder to push around. This doesn’t mean they’re impervious to attack — Israel has been struck by Iran and its proxies — but having nukes dramatically improves a small country’s security.
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-need https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-n...
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoI think the collapse of the US as "The World's Policeman", will result in the most nuclear proliferation since the 50s. That alone will make the world a much, much more dangerous place.
- deactivatedexp 2y ago[flagged]
- ryanisnan 2y agoWhat does this mean? Is this super racist or am I just interpreting it that way?
- rat9988 2y agoNo, it's the opposit of racist actually.
- potato3732842 2y agoHe's asking if the first world will allow non-rich non-european countries that don't already have nukes to develop nukes while insinuating that there's a racial element (there definitely was historically) to such decisions.
- graeme 2y agoIndia and Pakistan both have the bomb.
- hypeatei 2y agoMaybe if Trump keeps beating his chest saying "peace" and "denuclearization" then it'll happen.
- mongol 2y agoFor sure. My understanding is that this is the main reason why US foreign policy in relation to Europe and NATO was steadfast for 75 years - that it provided this stability. It helped in the quest to avoid nuclear proliferation - many countries could say : Look, we don't have nukes either! And the proof is in the pudding, during these 75 years not a single bomb exploded with intent to kill. The forecast for the next 75 years surely is more dire.
- tombert 2y agoMakes me wonder if I should get the hell out of New York. Seriously, if someone decides to nuke the US, where would they start? Almost certainly Washington DC and NYC. The US is too big to bomb in its entirety. Maybe I should move to Boise, Idaho or something. I don't think they're going to get bombed, and it seems nice.
- mhog_hn 2y agoSimilarly there are Europeans considering a move to rural France or the Iberian peninsula.
- morkalork 2y agoJust avoid any rural areas east of Kansas or wherever there are minuteman silos!
- hypeatei 2y agoYou won't want to live anywhere after nukes start flying. Even if your location isn't hit directly, you're dealing with a complete collapse of society as we know it. Not to mention things like nuclear winter. > The US is too big to bomb in its entirety. Russia has ~5500 warheads, so maybe not every square inch but certainly several cities and other locations in each state.
- tombert 2y agoYou know, those underground bomb shelters from the 50's and 60's always did seem kind of cool...
- CamperBob2 2y agoIf more than 10% of their warheads still work, I'd be (hopefully metaphorically) blown away.
- TiredOfLife 2y agoSoon to be more after trump gives them american ones
- 2y ago
- ldng 2y agoIt's one thing to want to withdraw orderly, it's another to treacherously backstab your allies.
- cm2187 2y agoWhy more dangerous? I am worried about religious fanatics armed with nuclear weapons. I am not really worried about Germany, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan armed with them. The more deterence, the less likely there will be a war. You go to war when you think you can get away with it, not when you think there is even a 10% chance all you major cities will be nuked.
- cloverich 2y agoThe more independent entities with Nuclear weapons, the more avenues for one to be used. Simple as that. Every country has potential to move towards national fanaticism over time.
- cm2187 2y agoThat's just not the case. Look at every conflict of the past 50 years. Major powers trade very carefully against a nuclear armed nation. Which by the way largely explained Biden's tepid military support to Ukraine, giving them just enough weapons for them not to collapse but not enough to make any serious dent to Russia. And basically maximising casualties by making the conflict last.
- cloverich 2y agoThat's not an argument against my statement, IMHO. If I were a nation without Nuclear arms, I would absolutely be racing to get them. That's independent of whether or not I think the aggregate risk increases. The US and Russia have deep levels of communication that have evolved over time in responses to near misses with Nuclear weapon firings. The more countries that enter in to that territory, the more need to have that communication and the more chances and avenues there are for mis cues. One mis cue results in at least one nuke being fired, and where one flies several have the chance to. And that's ignoring the fact that fanatical / suicidal regimes do in fact come to power from time to time. I too hope that more nuclear arms will result in reduced conflicts and a reduced risk model overall. But if I were to bet, I'd bet that if we 10x the number of players with Nuke's, we 10x the number of chances for some to be used.
- 2y ago
- throwup238 2y ago> That alone will make the world a much, much more dangerous place. It will make the world a safer place. That's why Macron is opening up this discussion at all.
- ReptileMan 2y ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> have always consider trying to obtains nukes to be casus belli for preventive nuclear strikes So did Churchill [1]. Unfortunately, that way be strategic nuclear war. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
- rodgerd 2y agoAnd yet South Africa and Israel aren't glass.
- bagpuss 2y agowhat happened on Bouvet Island? will we ever know?
- m4rtink 2y agoNo one will ever confirm or deny what happened.
- throw0101d 2y ago> what happened on Bouvet Island? will we ever know? For those unaware: > The Vela incident was an unidentified double flash of light detected by an American Vela Hotel satellite on 22 September 1979 near the South African territory of Prince Edward Islands in the Indian Ocean, roughly midway between Africa and Antarctica. Today, most independent researchers believe that the flash was caused by a nuclear explosion[1][2][3]—an undeclared joint nuclear test carried out by South Africa and Israel.[4][5] > The cause of the flash remains officially unknown, and some information about the event remains classified by the US government.[5] While it has been suggested that the signal could have been caused by a meteoroid hitting the satellite, the previous 41 double flashes detected by the Vela satellites were caused by nuclear weapons tests.[6][7][8] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
- colechristensen 2y agoI was under the impression from things I've read (though I don't remember where) that Japan has for a long time been everything but nuclear ready. As in they wanted to be able to say they didn't have nuclear weapons but in reality they'd done everything but final assembly of devices (or similar 95% complete kind of status). Perhaps even similar to Israel's assumed but never publicly acknowledged full nuclear capability.
- Epa095 2y agoIt's called nuclear latency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency Japan is considered a "paranuclear" state, with complete technical prowess to develop a nuclear weapon quickly, and is sometimes called being "one screwdriver's turn" from the bomb, as it is considered to have the materials and technical capacity to make a nuclear weapon at will.
- m4rtink 2y agoAlso the solid fueled orbital launch rockets Japan has are totally not ICBMs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-V#Potential_as_an_intercontinental_ballistic_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-V#Potential_as_an_interconti... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_(rocket)#Vehicle_description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_(rocket)#Vehicle_descr... "The Epsilon is expected to have a shorter launch preparation time than its predecessors;[11][12][13] a function called "mobile launch control" greatly shortens the launch preparation time, and needs only eight people at the launch site,[14] compared with 150 people for earlier systems.[15]" All this is just a coincidence. ^_-
- throw0101d 2y ago> Also the solid fueled orbital launch rockets Japan has are totally not ICBMs: The biggest threats to Japan are China and North Korea: you do not need ICBMs for them. Cruise missiles have ranges of >1500km: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family) And with that, a missile launched from the north of Japan (e.g., Sapporo) can hit NK: * http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=1500km@RJCC http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=1500km@RJCC Southern Japan (e.g., Nagasaki) can reach Beijing and Shanghai: * http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=1500km@RJFU http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=1500km@RJFU Japan doesn't currently have any, but perhaps Taiwan and/or SK would be willing to sell them some existing design: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyunmoo-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyunmoo-3 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiung_Feng_IIE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiung_Feng_IIE Though they seem to be working on updating their own design: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_12_surface-to-ship_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_12_surface-to-ship_missil...
- eqmvii 2y agoUkraine does too…
- lottin 2y agoIt's an absolute necessity. The US has lost all credibility as a deterrent.
- yongjik 2y agoThere have been some South Koreans arguing for developing nukes, and until about two months ago, I was staunchly in the camp of "What a bunch of airheads, what purpose would nukes serve in our situation, when we already have our nuclear umbrella?" Now I'm not so sure.
- ironyman 2y agoThese are nuclear capable countries but actually fielding them requires strong political will and a supply chain that is untouchable to adversaries. Given the amount of sabotage the Chinese routinely do to Taiwanese, Japanese and Korean systems, I don't have much faith in that. Small nuclear armed states will never have a credible deterrent because unfortunately due to their countries' small size they will always be at risk of a first strike. Chinese leaders believed they were in this position vis-a-vis the United States until about a decade and a half ago. For example, we hear about North Korea a lot but they don't have a credible deterrent. Their stockpiles are easily destroyed in a surprise attack by a couple of JASSMs because they don't have the luxury of a large landmass like Russia and China to move their mobile launchers around.
- m4rtink 2y agoThat's why you usually base nuclear missile in submarines for smaller contries, the idea being that if the country itself gets attacked, the hidden submarine will figure it out & launch the nukes while playing "god save the queen"/"sakura sakura"/"Gangam style" on the PA system. The last one possibly being a worse crime on humanity than the nukes.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- saguntum 2y agoI think the French discussions of extending nuclear deterrence over Europe are meant to dissuade nuclear proliferation vis a vis Poland and maybe Germany. The US nuclear umbrella via the NATO alliance once served that purpose. Now, France is trying to contain nuclear proliferation.