13 ms·
I don't know that it's the best or fairest situation, but I do know I like it better than "every country is allowed to have nukes."
by JohnBooty 1y ago
I don't know that it's the best or fairest situation, but I do know I like it better than "every country is allowed to have nukes."
- seydor 1y agorecent events show that instead, every country should have nukes if they want to be safe. Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story. It's "make nukes first, ask questions later"
- viraptor 1y agoNK isn't attacked, because SK cities are in range for conventional rockets. I'm not sure how much the nuclear capabilities add to that.
- rich_sasha 1y agoI think GP is right, sadly. The logical conclusion from Ukraine, Iran and North Korea is, get nukes. UN designations of illegal wars turned out to be BS, the only thing that may work is nukes. Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon. We all hooray (well, some of us) the "good" countries having nukes, to bring peace and stability. But it only takes one funky election to get a crazy person in charge of such "good" nukes. And if you 10x the number of nuclear powers, that's 10x more shots at that.
- aaronbrethorst 1y agoLet's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon. I don't intend this as a drive-by zinger, far from it, but I think you're being hopelessly optimistic. Every country with the science and engineering muscle to make it happen will be pursuing a nuclear program. NATO, former Warsaw Pact, some assholes who managed to cobble together a broadly recognized country by virtue of force of will, you name it. They're all going to be seeking to create nuclear weapons.
- gghhzzgghhzz 1y agoGP is missing one very relevant example of Libya. Gaddafi was persuaded by the west to abandon his nuclear programme, and 8 years later he was dead in a ditch.
- thimabi 1y agoConsidering that his own population was vehemently opposed to his authoritarian regime, I don’t think it’s fair to say Gaddafi’s fate was tied to the end of the nuclear programme. I certainly hope he wouldn’t leash nuclear weapons on his fellow countrymen.
- herewulf 1y agoHis authoritarian regime was broken by Western air power and the natural consequence was ending up dead in a ditch. Also, you probably mean "unleash".
- thimabi 1y agoThanks for picking up that minor spelling mistake. Can’t correct it now, unfortunately, but at least the message is understandable. I do disagree with your premise that Gaddafi’s death was a natural consequence of the Western intervention. Whilst watching the events unfold at the time, I’d say he would be ousted and killed irrespectively of any intervention — either by the populace or by the various factions vying for power.
- deadfoxygrandpa 1y agowell, we'll never get to know that because he was killed because of western intervention
- foooorsyth 1y agoRockets? Seoul is in artillery range of the border.
- stickfigure 1y agoNorth Korea wasn't attacked because they have rocket artillery trained on Seoul. That's why nobody stopped them from developing nukes in the first place. Kim doesn't need nuclear weapons to cause nuclear-scale damage.
- secondcoming 1y agoAttacking North Korea would result in millions of refugees pouring into South Korea and China. Nobody wants that
- somenameforme 1y agoHahaha, and what do you think's going to happen to Iran if this stuff is successful? They already have more refugees living there than in any other country in the world except Turkey [1], owing to US adventures in other parts of the world. And they have more than 3x the population of North Korea on top. For that matter they also have more than 3x the population of Syria. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_refugee_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_re...
- sejje 1y agoIf what stuff is successful?
- somenameforme 1y agoThe goal is to overthrow the Iranian government (again) and try to install a puppet regime (again). Conveniently enough, even if you happen to think the nuclear pretext is the goal - it still entails the exact same thing. Destroying some facilities is obviously not going to change their nuclear skills, capabilities, or ambitions. On the contrary - if there was internal doubt about developing a nuclear weapon within Iran, that doubt is now completely erased.
- 1y ago
- normie3000 1y ago> every country should have nukes if they want to be safe This seems analogous to the idea that every household should have guns if they want to be safe.
- seydor 1y agoExcept that police exists. We willingly relinquish the monopoly of violence to the state that protects us. The world nation stage is anarchic instead, there is no world police, and the strong dominate
- ExoticPearTree 1y agoExcept the police cannot instantly teleport to your location if you are in trouble, hence you have guns to protect yourself until the police arrives.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- RugnirViking 1y agothe calculus that I, everyone I know and care about, and everyone that i've ever heard about, relies upon is that you're far less likely to need to police to teleport instantly to you if our divorced angry next door neighbor don't have a gun for his self defence
- ExoticPearTree 1y agoMaybe not a gun, but an axe or a chainsaw tend to get the job done pretty well. Not as fast, but still. And why a divorced guy living in his house be an issue with your friends or neighbors?
- rapind 1y ago> if our divorced angry next door neighbor Why is “divorced” relevant. Maybe he should be the one worried about NIMBYs.
- herbst 1y agoGood old "weapons make everything safer" logic. Guess I should get some nukes as well?
- otherme123 1y agoIt's the prisoners dilemma: best scenario is nobody has nukes. But if your enemy get nukes, you better get them ASAP. A Nash equilibrium is set where everybody should either have nukes or be strongly allied with someone with nukes. Regarding guns: if you have easy access to weapons, everyone also has access, so the Nash equilibrium is "get a weapon". If weapons circulation is restricted, the Nash equilibrium is "don't waste your money on weapons".
- motorest 1y ago> Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story. How do you explain India vs Pakistan?
- seydor 1y agoboth have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt). the countries not having nukes are still in much worse situation I mean israel gets attacked even though they have nukes, but some rockets are not the same as a regime-changing war
- motorest 1y ago> both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt). Your original point was that nukes prevented attacks. India vs Pakistan rejects your hypothesis. You then proceeded to move the goalpost from "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" to "yeah countries with nukes get attacked, but attacks don't escalate" which is also an absurd argument to make. It's a particularly silly point to make in light of India Vs Pakistan because it was described as an electoral stunt to save face, which means nuclear nations still attack themselves even for the flimsiest reasons.
- seydor 1y ago> is also an absurd argument to make. It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. Nukes certainly act as deterrent for escalating a war. yes , attacks will exist , but we are not escalating with russia for a reason. you are being pedantic , but the argument for deterrence still stands strong.
- motorest 1y ago> It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. I agree, simplistic comments on the line of "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" are silly and don't pass the smell test. Don't you agree?
- ordinary 1y agoNukes make individual countries safer, but every additional country with nukes makes the world as a whole less safe.
- somenameforme 1y agoI'm not sure that's entirely true. We naturally always try to paint the "enemy" as an unhinged maniac ready to unless destruction on the entire world at a whim, but in reality I don't think this is pretty much ever the case. A population with the industrial and intellectual capability to develop a nuke in the first place is going to have grander ambitions than going out in a blaze of glory. I think even ultra-fundamentalists like the Taliban mostly just want to build up their own little vision of a utopia. I think a part of the reason North Korea plays crazy is because they have to. If the US didn't think they'd push the big red button, then we'd invade them in a heart-beat. Mutually assured destruction only works when you believe the other guy will push the button. So you need the bomb and then you also need to make sure everybody thinks you're willing to actually use it.
- stickfigure 1y agoSorry for the repetition but I'm just going to repeat this every time it comes up. Maybe some day I'll make it a bot. North Korea has enough conventional rocket artillery within range of Seoul to level the city. This is how Kim was able to run his nuclear program to completion in the first place. It also hasn't changed.
- mft_ 1y agoAn interesting question is: why wasn’t North Korea attacked to prevent it developing a nuclear weapon? (Probably the risk to S. Korea, and the risk of pulling China into a war.)
- quickthrowman 1y agoThe DMZ is 35 miles north of Seoul and there are enough NK artillery pieces aimed at Seoul to level it.
- dontTREATonme 1y agoIran has been attacking Israel for the last 30 years and everyone seems to agree that Israel has nukes… so clearly nukes don’t actually work as a deterrent, unless (again according to many comments here) you attack a genocidal state who’s only goal is to kill everyone but not use the only weapon at your disposal that can actually accomplish that goal. Iraq also attacked an allegedly nuclear capable Israel without fear of a nuclear reprisal.
- t-3 1y ago> Iran has been attacking Israel for the last 30 years Please give dates, locations, and number of casualties. Iran has made many aggressive statements and funded and armed Palestinian resistance organizations, but actual conflict between Israel and Iran has been mostly clandestine and not officially acknowledged, with a few exceptions where Israel and the US unilaterally attack Iran.
- dontTREATonme 1y agoHouthis and Hezbollah are both arms of Iranian regime, acting directly under IRGC direction.
- BeFlatXIII 1y agoLibya giving up its nukes is the precise reason Iran doubled down on its program.
- ponector 1y ago>recent events show that instead, every country should have nukes if they want to be safe. More recent events show that it doesn't matter. India-Pakistan endless fight. And Ukraine. Imagine they had nukes in 2022 and russian army advances. Should they nuke russian cities? It would not stop troops and give them more motivation to fight, to revenge. Should they nuke russian troops? To many nukes need for such large frontline.
- XorNot 1y agoWhy would they hit the front line? The only nuclear weapons Ukraine would need is enough to reliably ensure Moscow and St Petersburg cease existing. Do you really think the US would trade Washington and New York for a chunk of Mexico?
- JohnBooty 1y agoWhat do you think happens once Ukraine takes those two cities out with theoretical nukes in an alternate timeline?
- XorNot 1y agoDoes it matter? The Russian parliament, most of it's wealthy citizens and all the critical industries would be dead. Like...that's the whole point of MAD. You might as well ask "well why didn't the US and Soviet Union go to war? Obviously they won't launch..." The entire point of a nuclear deterrent is it stops people asking those sorts of questions, because ultimately it's a gamble. The only guarantee you get is "don't invade my territory and I won't launch". As soon as you start not doing that, you get to ask if you think it's a 1% chance, or a 2% chance, or or or... You get to find out when your capital and most populous city do or do not explode. And you get to roll those dice over and over again. Like I said: what % chance of Washington DC, and New York City being obliterated would you take for a chunk of Mexico? Obviously if Mexico launch you're going to blow the hell out of it's capital and probably some other targets, but you aren't going to be doing that till after those two cities are gone.
- ckemere 1y ago
- ignoramous 1y agoProbably because the country you live in has one or is under unconditional protection of one.
- pms 1y agoI don't think that's sustainable, because it leads to injustice, i.e., countries with nuclear weapons abusing their position. As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission is to maintain peace and prevent large-scale conflict on the planet. This should be the only entity that is approved to have nuclear weapons.
- andsoitis 1y agowhat do you think could be a first step that moves us in that direction?
- pms 1y agoIn a reasonable world, the first step would be reforming NATO so that it becomes more neutral and focused on preventing wars rather than countering Russia. I'm saying this as a Pole, so definitely this isn't self-serving, since Poles are second most hated by Russians after Ukraine. This step should, however, happen in parallel with the EU developing its European army, to defend itself from Russia if that's needed, which is another challenging and non-obvious step, but we're closer to this now than we were before Trump. However, we don't live in a reasonable world, so I suspect the first step will be, as much as I don't want it, World War III.
- refurb 1y agoLet’s be honest - like most international law, it’s just a coat of paint over the stronger demand the weaker do what they say. If it wasn’t the US as the world’s leading power, but rather China, the list of countries forced to give up nuclear programs would be entirely different. I’m not against trying to limit nuclear proliferation, but trying to paint it as some democratic legal process is naive. The US loves to use the UN as cover for their own strategic goals, but happy to ignore the UN if it benefits them. Same with those talking nuclear non-proliferation.