If anything, it underscores the importance of actually having nuclear weapons as a deterrence. If Iran actually did have nukes we would not be picking fights with them
Ukraine as well. One is a story about why you should try to aquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible and the other is a story about why you should never give them up, even if you think it’s a bad idea that you have them and have serious doubts that you could maintain them safely or use them effectively.
It never occurred to me that the beef the US has with other countries having nukes is because it would put them on even footing. No nukes = no leverage.
only three countries have ever had nukes and willingly handed them over to de-escalate tensions about everyone having nukes: Ukraine, Belarus, and Pakistan. All three are consistent battlegrounds of the global northern empires now. the nuclear countries have demonstrated, it seems, to the global south that the adults table at the UN is who has nukes and if you get nukes and give them up, you will be punished for your good faith
Uhh, Pakistan still has a bunch of nukes, Kazakhstan gave theirs up at the same time as the other two, and South Africa had them and gave them up. Also there’s no war in Pakistan, and only war at a low level in Belarus (and they’re the aggressor).
thanks. i wrote that up real fast and i got my countries mixed up. and in the case of Belarus what i was talking about is that their existence as a russian colony has been perhaps more strongly cemented than back when they were a union republic of the ussr
yeah i don’t even know why in my head i didn’t flag that when i was literally thinking about how anxiety inducing it is how many of the nations with nukes are run by authoritarian freaks
While I agree broadly with what you said, Pakistan has kept their nukes, and is therefore quite independent. Belarus is also fine, since they’re a Russian protectorate.
Well yeah then they wouldn’t be able to jack boot their way around the world causing problems.
Imagine how much better it would be if the US military had maybe 10% less funding and that money was spent on infrastructure or social services. Can’t have that so they have to justify the massive military expense by having nearly constant wars. If no obvious conflict presents itself, invent one, and then lose.
If anything, it underscores the importance of actually having nuclear weapons as a deterrence. If Iran actually did have nukes we would not be picking fights with them
Ukraine as well. One is a story about why you should try to aquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible and the other is a story about why you should never give them up, even if you think it’s a bad idea that you have them and have serious doubts that you could maintain them safely or use them effectively.
It’s like goddamned advertising for nukes.
It never occurred to me that the beef the US has with other countries having nukes is because it would put them on even footing. No nukes = no leverage.
TBF lots of countries think everyone having nukes is a bad idea. It’s just so nice to be one of the few that does…
only three countries have ever had nukes and willingly handed them over to de-escalate tensions about everyone having nukes: Ukraine, Belarus, and Pakistan. All three are consistent battlegrounds of the global northern empires now. the nuclear countries have demonstrated, it seems, to the global south that the adults table at the UN is who has nukes and if you get nukes and give them up, you will be punished for your good faith
Uhh, Pakistan still has a bunch of nukes, Kazakhstan gave theirs up at the same time as the other two, and South Africa had them and gave them up. Also there’s no war in Pakistan, and only war at a low level in Belarus (and they’re the aggressor).
thanks. i wrote that up real fast and i got my countries mixed up. and in the case of Belarus what i was talking about is that their existence as a russian colony has been perhaps more strongly cemented than back when they were a union republic of the ussr
Pakistan couldn’t lose their nukes, they need them to MAD with India
yeah i don’t even know why in my head i didn’t flag that when i was literally thinking about how anxiety inducing it is how many of the nations with nukes are run by authoritarian freaks
What about South Africa?
While I agree broadly with what you said, Pakistan has kept their nukes, and is therefore quite independent. Belarus is also fine, since they’re a Russian protectorate.
Well yeah then they wouldn’t be able to jack boot their way around the world causing problems.
Imagine how much better it would be if the US military had maybe 10% less funding and that money was spent on infrastructure or social services. Can’t have that so they have to justify the massive military expense by having nearly constant wars. If no obvious conflict presents itself, invent one, and then lose.
Sure but st the same time. If iran was seeking a nuke years ago . The usa eould have attacked earlier when Iran was weaker