5 ms·

I mean the US have nukes and they’re hardly stable and predictable. Allow them to have nukes, who are you lol

by bromuk 7mo ago

observationist 7mo ago
>who are you lol The US. Who else on the planet would have the effective power to possibly even think about who should and shouldn't have them, while plausibly being able to do anything about it?
- PUSH_AX 7mo ago
  Probably a country that has done so in the past, like the UK…
- inopinatus 7mo ago
  Given how the situations w.r.t Ukraine & Iran escalated, the US is the only country that has specifically and publicly demonstrated it's inability on both counts. We can't give Ukraine their nukes back because they were decommissioned (and they were rotting at the time), but there'd be no nation more deserving. Corollary: no individual nation is able to shoulder such responsibilities.
  - k33n 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dgroshev 7mo ago
      > recused itself Surrendered.
      - reverius42 7mo ago
        More like abandoned an ally because the new government prefers a former adversary on the other side of the conflict.
      - k33n 6mo ago
        Ukraine simply isn't of any strategic importance to the US.
    - reverius42 7mo ago
      > the US fully having its way with them So the Straights of Hormuz are totally reopened, right? Any day now?
      - Auracle 7mo ago
        It’s pretty damned hard to completely secure any area from a potential attack when all one side needs is a drone. That’s a pretty specific high bar when we’ve destroyed most of their navy, Air Force, etc, all within a couple of weeks.
        solid_fuel 7mo ago
        > It’s pretty damned hard to completely secure any area from a potential attack when all one side needs is a drone. Man, maybe the US should have had a contingency plan to address the drone issue before launching an unprovoked attack. > That’s a pretty specific high bar It's the bar that matters.
        cthalupa 7mo ago
        The best part is that Ukraine wanted to sell us their anti-drone tech to us a year ago and Trump and co didn't see fit to pursue it. Did they not know that the Shahed-136 has seen massive fucking use in Ukraine by Russia? Did they not think that Ukraine now being able to shoot like 75%+ of them down might be an indication that, if we are planning to start some stupid pointless war with the country that makes these drones, it might be a good idea to have that same capability? Or did they think we have an infinite ammo cheat, and we can just launch an infinite number of missiles that cost millions of dollars to shoot down a drone that costs tens of thousands? We had literally years of intelligence on the capabilities of these drones. The admin claims "We thought it was Zelensky being Zelensky. Self promotion" - but we know how successful their anti-drone capabilities are. We have the data! YOU JUST HAD TO TALK TO THE PEOPLE TO VERIFY IT. The sheer incompetence of these people is astounding.
        k33n 6mo ago
        The US has layered contingency plans for every conceivable mission against every conceivable foe. It's been like that since WWII. Iran hasn't made any meaningful impact on US forces, but Iran is essentially crippled. Of course they were going to launch some drones. Of course that was expected.
    - kergonath 7mo ago
      > Re: Iran, the US fully having its way with them. Sure, everything is fine. I am sure Iran will be a peaceful democracy any day now. In reality, none of Trump’s stated goals are likely to happen any time soon.
  - skinnymuch 7mo ago
    Ukraine never really had nukes. Only technically. NATO is bad for the world so any one fighting it are pretty cool. Which seems to be Russia and Korea.
- jjtwixman 7mo ago
  Then you're in no position to throw rocks. The US is currently humiliating itself on the world stage in a fashion that makes Brexit look positively sage in comparison.
- ta20240528 7mo ago
  China. If they wanted to.
marcus_holmes 7mo ago
Given that the nukes that the UK has is Trident, which is a US system that the UK cannot use without US cooperation [0], it seems entirely appropriate that the USA gets to decide if the UK has nukes. [0] Yes, the UK can fire them without US approval, but the actual hardware is maintained and supported by the USA, and they have to be shipped to the USA regularly for maintenance. If the USA decided that the UK should not have nukes, there's not a lot the UK could do about it, the Trident system would have to be scrapped entirely and replaced with some completely different system. Which the UK doesn't really have the capability to do and it would cost a fortune to acquire that capability.
- Nursie 7mo ago
  That's only the delivery method, the warheads are UK-designed and built. So yes, if the US withdrew support then the existing nuclear program would be pretty fucked for a while, but the US couldn't unilaterally de-nuclearise the UK.
- ta20240528 7mo ago
  Come now American people, The UK and France have long had a project 'on the shelf' to substitute the missiles with the French M51 ballistic missiles. They don't want to do it, they'll do it if they have to.
- Chaosvex 7mo ago
  Imagine thinking that there aren't national security contingency plans for this sort of thing.

I mean the US have nukes and they’re hardly stable and predictable. Allow them to have nukes, who are you lol

by bromuk 7mo ago

I mean the US have nukes and they’re hardly stable and predictable. Allow them to have nukes, who are you lol

>who are you lol The US. Who else on the planet would have the effective power to possibly even think about who should and shouldn't have them, while plausibly being able to do anything about it?

PUSH_AX 7mo ago
Probably a country that has done so in the past, like the UK…
inopinatus 7mo ago
Given how the situations w.r.t Ukraine & Iran escalated, the US is the only country that has specifically and publicly demonstrated it's inability on both counts. We can't give Ukraine their nukes back because they were decommissioned (and they were rotting at the time), but there'd be no nation more deserving. Corollary: no individual nation is able to shoulder such responsibilities.
- k33n 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dgroshev 7mo ago
    > recused itself Surrendered.
    - reverius42 7mo ago
      More like abandoned an ally because the new government prefers a former adversary on the other side of the conflict.
    - k33n 6mo ago
      Ukraine simply isn't of any strategic importance to the US.
  - reverius42 7mo ago
    > the US fully having its way with them So the Straights of Hormuz are totally reopened, right? Any day now?
    - Auracle 7mo ago
      It’s pretty damned hard to completely secure any area from a potential attack when all one side needs is a drone. That’s a pretty specific high bar when we’ve destroyed most of their navy, Air Force, etc, all within a couple of weeks.
      - solid_fuel 7mo ago
        > It’s pretty damned hard to completely secure any area from a potential attack when all one side needs is a drone. Man, maybe the US should have had a contingency plan to address the drone issue before launching an unprovoked attack. > That’s a pretty specific high bar It's the bar that matters.
        cthalupa 7mo ago
        The best part is that Ukraine wanted to sell us their anti-drone tech to us a year ago and Trump and co didn't see fit to pursue it. Did they not know that the Shahed-136 has seen massive fucking use in Ukraine by Russia? Did they not think that Ukraine now being able to shoot like 75%+ of them down might be an indication that, if we are planning to start some stupid pointless war with the country that makes these drones, it might be a good idea to have that same capability? Or did they think we have an infinite ammo cheat, and we can just launch an infinite number of missiles that cost millions of dollars to shoot down a drone that costs tens of thousands? We had literally years of intelligence on the capabilities of these drones. The admin claims "We thought it was Zelensky being Zelensky. Self promotion" - but we know how successful their anti-drone capabilities are. We have the data! YOU JUST HAD TO TALK TO THE PEOPLE TO VERIFY IT. The sheer incompetence of these people is astounding.
        k33n 6mo ago
        The US has layered contingency plans for every conceivable mission against every conceivable foe. It's been like that since WWII. Iran hasn't made any meaningful impact on US forces, but Iran is essentially crippled. Of course they were going to launch some drones. Of course that was expected.
  - kergonath 7mo ago
    > Re: Iran, the US fully having its way with them. Sure, everything is fine. I am sure Iran will be a peaceful democracy any day now. In reality, none of Trump’s stated goals are likely to happen any time soon.
- skinnymuch 7mo ago
  Ukraine never really had nukes. Only technically. NATO is bad for the world so any one fighting it are pretty cool. Which seems to be Russia and Korea.
jjtwixman 7mo ago
Then you're in no position to throw rocks. The US is currently humiliating itself on the world stage in a fashion that makes Brexit look positively sage in comparison.
ta20240528 7mo ago
China. If they wanted to.

marcus_holmes 7mo ago

Given that the nukes that the UK has is Trident, which is a US system that the UK cannot use without US cooperation [0], it seems entirely appropriate that the USA gets to decide if the UK has nukes. [0] Yes, the UK can fire them without US approval, but the actual hardware is maintained and supported by the USA, and they have to be shipped to the USA regularly for maintenance. If the USA decided that the UK should not have nukes, there's not a lot the UK could do about it, the Trident system would have to be scrapped entirely and replaced with some completely different system. Which the UK doesn't really have the capability to do and it would cost a fortune to acquire that capability.

Nursie 7mo ago
That's only the delivery method, the warheads are UK-designed and built. So yes, if the US withdrew support then the existing nuclear program would be pretty fucked for a while, but the US couldn't unilaterally de-nuclearise the UK.
ta20240528 7mo ago
Come now American people, The UK and France have long had a project 'on the shelf' to substitute the missiles with the French M51 ballistic missiles. They don't want to do it, they'll do it if they have to.
Chaosvex 7mo ago
Imagine thinking that there aren't national security contingency plans for this sort of thing.