4 ms·

The truble is, that with current new world order, not having nuclear power means you are helpless sitting duck for active insatiable bullies. Like, there is no

by watwut 8mo ago

The truble is, that with current new world order, not having nuclear power means you are helpless sitting duck for active insatiable bullies. Like, there is no other option - not having them means you will be turned into rubble or will have to pay a lot for not being tuned into rubble. The most aggressive states have nuclear power. The countries they attacked dont.

lwansbrough 8mo ago
You are arguing in favour of a nuclear apocalypse.
- krapp 8mo ago
  They're arguing in favor of MAD, which kept the US and Soviets from bathing the entire world in radioactive fire for approximately 45 years, and is the only thing keeping American and Chinese imperialism even slightly constrained. If you have a better idea, we're all ears. Disarmament isn't an option, the destroyer is here so choose its form.
  - lwansbrough 8mo ago
    MAD assumes rational actors and perfect game play. Ultimately what stopped armageddon wasn’t MAD but the blind faith of Stanislav Petrov. States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power.
    - krapp 8mo ago
      >States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power. "Joining the nuclear umbrella of a greater power" implies MAD as a doctrine, unless there is only one nuclear power. And that's just imperialism. Ask former Soviet states or Europe or Canada currently how things work out as a vassal of their liege lord.
      - lwansbrough 8mo ago
        I'm not saying MAD is a bad doctrine, I'm saying it breaks down as the complexity of diplomacy increases quadratically with the number of nuclear equipped actors. I'm Canadian. Things are good here. Obtaining a bomb wouldn't make life materially better for anyone in Canada, nor would it defend us against the US. Not to mention anybody could drive a nuke into the middle of Manhattan and detonate it and you'd maybe never know who was responsible. The importance of non-proliferation cannot be understated.
        krapp 8mo ago
        Non-proliferation is a dead end. No one trusts the US to act in good faith. Any nation that doesn't get a nuclear warhead and point it at Washngton DC knows they're just one American Presidential scandal away from getting their teeth kicked in.
        lwansbrough 8mo ago
        Yes I believe this was the line of thinking that has lead us to the invasion of Iran. So it doesn't appear to be a viable strategy. The US can dispatch a strike group faster than any country can build a nuke, let alone enough nukes to actually make a difference. North Korea only succeeded because of its close ties with China and Russia, and perhaps because previous administrations weren't so brazen as to invade them. An alternative, as always, is to work towards our strengths as middle-powers. Remain steadfast in our pursuit of diplomatic and economic ties. Make the world too complex and intertwined to make invasions practical. And of course, while Russia is the leader in this area, it's not the only country that could balkanize the US through "peaceful" means.
        hammock 8mo ago
        North Korea isn’t the only country that got a nuke by not playing the rules…
        watwut 8mo ago
        USA attacked Iran for no reason, because it was weak and Israel + probably saudi wanted so. It wont stop there either, it will go on to Cuba, Greenland and Canada. Meanwhile, Europe will become unstable due to new waves of refugees and expanding Russia. USA dispatching strikes at will based on incoherent reasons, is just another reason why everyone needs nukes now. And they need them before they are an active target, because yes, it takes years. And no, it is not about Iran being evil. Trump does not care about that at all. He even wanted to keep the regime as is (to the extend there was a vague concept of a maybe plan). > Remain steadfast in our pursuit of diplomatic and economic ties. Make the world too complex and intertwined to make invasions practical. That made everyone vulnerable to Trump.
    - watwut 8mo ago
      > States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power Who? Trump, literally nazi Miller and Vance to destroy them and steal their resources? Putin, lets see how their satelite states do. Oh, China?
  - PearlRiver 8mo ago
    Americans WANT the imperialism and genuinely believe that becoming an American second tier citizen is something everyone wants.
- watwut 8mo ago
  I am saying giving up nukes allowed Ukraine to be attacked. Russia stopped there only because they are stuck. They would more westward until they would reach nuclear power. Quickly growing war that USA started for no reason while threatening Cuba, Greenland and Canada is also a point here. I am saying that USA wont stop attacking weaker coutries, unless they get similarly stuck. Likewise Israel, they will go on displacine hundreds thousands of people through the region - which they do literally now. You are saying that all tge other countries should accept being sitting ducks for Russia and USA as they do what they do.
hammock 8mo ago
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. There is not a country on earth without a nuke that has not been either attacked or pays a lot (whether it’s taking IMF loans, or assenting to coordinated central banking policy etc) I disagree with the other comments that you are necessarily advocating that everyone gets a nuke. Not every state has to be fully free and sovereign. The world has never worked that way (now of course the striving and tension will always be there, the world is dynamic and people forget that)

by watwut 8mo ago

lwansbrough 8mo ago

You are arguing in favour of a nuclear apocalypse.

krapp 8mo ago
They're arguing in favor of MAD, which kept the US and Soviets from bathing the entire world in radioactive fire for approximately 45 years, and is the only thing keeping American and Chinese imperialism even slightly constrained. If you have a better idea, we're all ears. Disarmament isn't an option, the destroyer is here so choose its form.
- lwansbrough 8mo ago
  MAD assumes rational actors and perfect game play. Ultimately what stopped armageddon wasn’t MAD but the blind faith of Stanislav Petrov. States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power.
  - krapp 8mo ago
    >States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power. "Joining the nuclear umbrella of a greater power" implies MAD as a doctrine, unless there is only one nuclear power. And that's just imperialism. Ask former Soviet states or Europe or Canada currently how things work out as a vassal of their liege lord.
    - lwansbrough 8mo ago
      I'm not saying MAD is a bad doctrine, I'm saying it breaks down as the complexity of diplomacy increases quadratically with the number of nuclear equipped actors. I'm Canadian. Things are good here. Obtaining a bomb wouldn't make life materially better for anyone in Canada, nor would it defend us against the US. Not to mention anybody could drive a nuke into the middle of Manhattan and detonate it and you'd maybe never know who was responsible. The importance of non-proliferation cannot be understated.
      - krapp 8mo ago
        Non-proliferation is a dead end. No one trusts the US to act in good faith. Any nation that doesn't get a nuclear warhead and point it at Washngton DC knows they're just one American Presidential scandal away from getting their teeth kicked in.
        lwansbrough 8mo ago
        Yes I believe this was the line of thinking that has lead us to the invasion of Iran. So it doesn't appear to be a viable strategy. The US can dispatch a strike group faster than any country can build a nuke, let alone enough nukes to actually make a difference. North Korea only succeeded because of its close ties with China and Russia, and perhaps because previous administrations weren't so brazen as to invade them. An alternative, as always, is to work towards our strengths as middle-powers. Remain steadfast in our pursuit of diplomatic and economic ties. Make the world too complex and intertwined to make invasions practical. And of course, while Russia is the leader in this area, it's not the only country that could balkanize the US through "peaceful" means.
        hammock 8mo ago
        North Korea isn’t the only country that got a nuke by not playing the rules…
        watwut 8mo ago
        USA attacked Iran for no reason, because it was weak and Israel + probably saudi wanted so. It wont stop there either, it will go on to Cuba, Greenland and Canada. Meanwhile, Europe will become unstable due to new waves of refugees and expanding Russia. USA dispatching strikes at will based on incoherent reasons, is just another reason why everyone needs nukes now. And they need them before they are an active target, because yes, it takes years. And no, it is not about Iran being evil. Trump does not care about that at all. He even wanted to keep the regime as is (to the extend there was a vague concept of a maybe plan). > Remain steadfast in our pursuit of diplomatic and economic ties. Make the world too complex and intertwined to make invasions practical. That made everyone vulnerable to Trump.
  - watwut 8mo ago
    > States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power Who? Trump, literally nazi Miller and Vance to destroy them and steal their resources? Putin, lets see how their satelite states do. Oh, China?
- PearlRiver 8mo ago
  Americans WANT the imperialism and genuinely believe that becoming an American second tier citizen is something everyone wants.
watwut 8mo ago
I am saying giving up nukes allowed Ukraine to be attacked. Russia stopped there only because they are stuck. They would more westward until they would reach nuclear power. Quickly growing war that USA started for no reason while threatening Cuba, Greenland and Canada is also a point here. I am saying that USA wont stop attacking weaker coutries, unless they get similarly stuck. Likewise Israel, they will go on displacine hundreds thousands of people through the region - which they do literally now. You are saying that all tge other countries should accept being sitting ducks for Russia and USA as they do what they do.

hammock 8mo ago

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. There is not a country on earth without a nuke that has not been either attacked or pays a lot (whether it’s taking IMF loans, or assenting to coordinated central banking policy etc) I disagree with the other comments that you are necessarily advocating that everyone gets a nuke. Not every state has to be fully free and sovereign. The world has never worked that way (now of course the striving and tension will always be there, the world is dynamic and people forget that)