5 ms·

I 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, m

I 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 ago
  What does this mean? Is this super racist or am I just interpreting it that way?
  - rat9988 2y ago
    No, it's the opposit of racist actually.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    He'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 ago
  India and Pakistan both have the bomb.
hypeatei 2y ago
Maybe if Trump keeps beating his chest saying "peace" and "denuclearization" then it'll happen.
mongol 2y ago
For 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 ago
Makes 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 ago
  Similarly there are Europeans considering a move to rural France or the Iberian peninsula.
- morkalork 2y ago
  Just avoid any rural areas east of Kansas or wherever there are minuteman silos!
- hypeatei 2y ago
  You 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 ago
    You know, those underground bomb shelters from the 50's and 60's always did seem kind of cool...
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    If more than 10% of their warheads still work, I'd be (hopefully metaphorically) blown away.
  - TiredOfLife 2y ago
    Soon to be more after trump gives them american ones
- 2y ago
ldng 2y ago
It's one thing to want to withdraw orderly, it's another to treacherously backstab your allies.
cm2187 2y ago
Why 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    That'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 ago
      That'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.

I 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 ago
What does this mean? Is this super racist or am I just interpreting it that way?
- rat9988 2y ago
  No, it's the opposit of racist actually.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  He'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 ago
India and Pakistan both have the bomb.

hypeatei 2y ago

Maybe if Trump keeps beating his chest saying "peace" and "denuclearization" then it'll happen.

mongol 2y ago

For 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 ago

Makes 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 ago
Similarly there are Europeans considering a move to rural France or the Iberian peninsula.
morkalork 2y ago
Just avoid any rural areas east of Kansas or wherever there are minuteman silos!
hypeatei 2y ago
You 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 ago
  You know, those underground bomb shelters from the 50's and 60's always did seem kind of cool...
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  If more than 10% of their warheads still work, I'd be (hopefully metaphorically) blown away.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  Soon to be more after trump gives them american ones
2y ago

ldng 2y ago

It's one thing to want to withdraw orderly, it's another to treacherously backstab your allies.

cm2187 2y ago

Why 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 ago
The 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 ago
  That'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 ago
    That'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.