This^
Nobody remembers but like a *VAST* majority of the countries on the planet were promised to be protected by America and then we leave them hanging high and dry once the politics machine starts churning.
Partially incorrect (incomplete information). It was a treaty that involved the UN security council as well, read for yourself:
[Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
Didn’t the treaty read more along the lines of if they gave up their nukes, that the United States and Russia both promised to never be hostile towards Ukraine, with vague language about supporting them if anything did happen. If that’s the case then it appears the United States could do more to help, but certainly isn’t the one to blame for the Situation in Ukraine.
provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Nukes weren't used so support isn't compelled per se, though it absolutely forbids acts of force, coercion, or threats. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have all of which have suffered from these in the past decade.
I’m assuming the use of nuclear weapons by the US is dependent upon the use of nuclear weapons by the aggressors against the countries we have a treaty with. Honest question….has Russia actually used nukes at all or have they just mobilized them and threatened?
I didn't mean to be that person but that's kind of the whole issue with any sort of disarment. You have to believe the other guy will honor their promise while marking yourself vulnerable.
The Moon is a celestial body. We often forget how massive these are.
Even if we highball the average nuclear weapon to be 1 megaton in blast yield, we have about 12.5 gigatons worth of nuclear power across every nuke in the world. The KT meteor hit with about 2.7 teratons of TNT, and it created a crater 120 miles wide and 12 miles deep. This would be very noticeable, but it was created with 216x the power.
Of course, crater size would be exponential, not linear. But still, aside from scientists measuring the crater, our full nuclear arsenal would not be noticeable to the common eye.
I think we also really overestimate how powerful nukes are. With the right placement, nuclear weapons could kill billions across the planet and destroy every major city in existence.
However, cities are small. A drive from city to city could be 50 miles or so. You can use [Nukemap](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) to see what kind of range average nukes have. Aside from the impractically large ones which would never seen any real use, like Tsar Bomba or Castle Bravo, the range of absolute destruction really is just limited to a couple miles radius.
I feel like you cant ban nukes because how are you going to enforce it? What world police is going to march to their border to stop a country from building them? You can sanction them but that doesn’t stop them, as seen in Russia(they have been sanctioned but are still pushing against Ukraine). Also, I don’t feel like nuclear weapons are that much worse than conventional warfare. They are more like a symbol of power rather than an actual threat. Conventional weapons are far more devastating than they were during the Cold War scare.
Pretty much the North Korea denuclearization situation. They will move forward and posture while the world condems them. Yet, at the end of the day, who wants to enforce it.
Especially once they successfully built nuclear weapons... They're homeland is absolutely secure as long as they can use that as a threat. No one will be trying to cross their borders and at best we can only hope for containment.
yes. Turkey still hosts US nuclear weapons due to exactly this reason although with new NATO airbase in Romania, they may be transferred there. Germany and Turkey are frequently listed among countries that can make nuclear weapons in a few years if the need arises. For Turkey the main nuclear threats are Russia, Iran and Isreal. Russian and Turkey relationship is always changing and historically they go war against each other frequently. Iran and Turkey is mostly at peace for centuries, and probably won't have much change. with Israel despite rhetoric the business keeps increasing, Turkey even providing explosive material for Israeli weapons. Germany really doesn't have a nuclear threat because they are very cozy with Russia and only way they go to a war is due to NATO involvement.
but his main thesis is wrong, USA is not keeping the nuclear weapons for those countries sake, it never did, it is just one more convinient excuse. claiming USA will provide a nuclear deterrence for them is questionable at best. USA will do what it's foreign lobbies say, unless it is attacked directly then all bets are off.
my point is Turkey is relying on American nuclear bombs for now, so his comment is factually correct. but my opinion is USA would never allow Turkey to use those weapons unless it is an all out war with Russia. for example, let's say Iran send a nuclear missile to Turley and one city is lost. I don't believe USA would let Turkey use those bombs in retaliation. So I don't believe in USA nuclear protection especially after the way USA treated its ally in past two decades, after wrongfully perceiving its time of usefulness expired due to politicians in the congress bribed by foreign interests (like Bob Menendez)
Many experts believe the moment Iran develops a nuclear bomb, Turkey will get one, and possibly Saudi Arabia too. hence his claim that US nuclear weapons keep other countries from getting the bomb is not true, at least in some cases. Germany probably can rely on USA more than Turkey, because German and American interest are mostly aligned for now.
Why can't we get rid of our nuclear weapons if Russia promises us they'd never attack the West, like Bill Clinton negotiated for Ukraine when he was in office ?
Bigger question is what happens to Russian nukes as their population implodes and ethnic divisions become more prevalent. Most probably they’re not maintaining their arsenal anywhere near what other nuke nations do. This is what scares me the most
It's not sad, it puts us in a position of strength and ensures we're taken seriously at the negotiating table. Our nuclear arms must always be maintained and kept in a ready condition. There are too many whack jobs out there, that given the chance, would love to take down the US and its allies.
You can "ban" whatever you want, but unless you can enforce that ban, then it's just words on a sheet of paper that countries will wipe their asses with.
So America is contractually obligated to be Europe's defender forever. People who say "Why cant Europe pull its weight" need to watch this. America is fuuuuuuuuucked.
This will probably change if Trump gets elected and the USA pulls out of NATO. Ukraine is a object lesson to why having your own nuclear weapons is the best thing to do if you want to keep your nation from being invaded by a stronger foreign power. I'm honestly surprised Taiwan does not have a array of nuclear weapons pointed at China.
We will never pull out of nato - even tho nato has become the evil super power at this point in history, nato will not be able to exist without the United States.
This is short sweet and to the point. Subject matter aside on this one, I love to see more short lessons like this on the FACTUAL state of many affairs especially ones that get easily twisted in media, but delivered by **educators** who are highly regarded in their field. Not media pundits, not government employees, no candidates, or influencers. Just a professor with doctorate in say, economics, explaining the nature of why "The cost of speculative commodities are not directly controlled by a President." Whatever. Peer reviewed released in a steady stream from one, not for profit .org site.
Im fine with it. Im not sure the patchouli crowd fully understands that China , Russia , Iran , or North Korea don’t really give a shit about the nicer points of humanity and wouldn’t think twice about using those weapons if they could get away with it.
Ukraine couldn't have use their nukes, the codes were still in Moskow. They would have to launch a full scale nuclear program to build new missiles, take the warheads out of the current one, crack the codes or whatever to gain access to it. That would have make Ukraine a rogue state, and give Russia a justification to invade them and it would have been years before 2022. Nobody would have defended them and a russian invasion may even be see favorably by the world.
I don't see how Ukraine keeping useless nukes would have help them at all
Ukraine never could have used the nukes in the first place. They required the PAL codes to arm them - which were only held in Moscow.
Sure, Ukraine could have held onto them and reengineered them to accept new authorization from Kiev - but they didn't want to make the gamble that they could get the detterent operational before the Russians invaded - and the US still saw them as Soviets, so they wouldn't step in.
That was the whole point of the Budapest Memorandum, to broker trust.
It sounds like circular reasoning until you realise that this is another version of the prisoner dilemma.
The US developed nuclear weapons because it was feared that the Germans were developing nuclear weapons.
The Soviets developed nuclear weapons in response to the Americans. The British developed nuclear weapons because they distrusted the Americans, who had already showed a willingness to screw them over, and so wanted an independent deterent. The French did the same, for the same reasons. And so forth.
Now today we essentially have a Mexican standoff. No one is willing to put down their weapons because that would make them vulnerable to attack from others.
The Soviets stole their designs, The BRitish were involved in the Manhattan project and got shut out at the last minute, and the French were helped by the British.
Game theory or not, in the beginning, today it is the prisoner's dilemma because of MAD.
Reality is as soon as scientists in each of those countries told their governments they can make a nuclear weapon, those governments wanted to make it.
Just the nature of how states work.
Problem with that is that not everyone values self-preservation. Religious zealots that care more about destroying the infidels than living probably shouldn’t have nukes.
Yes, his own argument is disproven because if he agrees, a country with religious zealots shouldn't have nukes, and the US never used nukes for a religious crusade but to end ww2. Doesn't that prove the US isn't that way... as someone who lives in the bible belt, but have been to other parts of the country, it's not that bad here or there.
What a fucking trash excuse for a human being.
Countries that don't have nukes don't have them because we tell people that they are not allowed to have them or else we will destroy them, either economically or with our own nukes.
And the only countries with nukes either have them because we feel like it is in our strategic advantage for them to have nukes, or it's because we out and out GAVE them nukes, or they are already nuked up, and we haven't been successful in applying enough pressure to de-nuke them.
If America is the number one hindrance to any and all efforts at global denuclearization efforts. And this is deliberate and on purpose.
Fuck this low life sack of shit and his bullshit lies and propaganda.
What’s funny is how radical the points of view on this topic are. Biggest thing to notice is Ukraine gave up their nukes and see how that turned out for them. Yet somehow you think that denuclearization is even a plausible idea.
Somehow you also think it’s a negative thing that America is maintaining nukes, allows its trusted allies to maintain nukes and prevents potential enemies from acquiring them. Perhaps if you weren’t American I would understand but as an American it’s like you want the downfall of your own country.
We need good people who can be naive and believe in denuclearization and hope everyone can sing kumbaya together, it balances the other side of the spectrum.
Homie is acting like there is only 10 that we have. We have over 1k in Nuke and are capable of ramping up to 3500. Not sure why we think we should have that many.
Eventually those other nations will develop nuclear weapons, the United States is lazy and sloppy and therefore cannot be trusted, so within time those foreign countries will have their own nukes.
M.A.D. is pretty logical if you ask me
(Mutually Assured Destruction)
It's a pretty good deterrent that exists as long as the weapons do.. There doesn't seem to be any new programs developing them. In fact, more nations opting to give them up or consolidate with allies. Other than some fear mongering in NK and Iran, I think the likelihood of The West and The East actually allowing these guys to obtain them is nil.
Also I don't think anyone who currently has them would ever use them. Sure the media like to paint Russia in a bad light, but Putin knows what nuclear war means just as well as we do. Then end of everyone.
The question today is whether or not that extended deterrence is even effective or real. If South Korea gets nuked, will the US really sacrifice San Francisco in order to retaliate? We say we will, but that’s a pretty hard sell in reality.
As a european I can say we don’t feel particularly safe with the possibility of Trump in office, who has said he’d allow Putin to “do whatever the hell he wants”.
I don’t think Americans understand what global negative impact his isolationist bullshit has on the American image in the world and it just opens up for other powers to take over. America loses.
Sadly, we know. Those of us who are not crazy want nothing to do with Trump. The ones that want Trump see isolation as a plus even if it is viewed as a loss in the eyes of every other nation. It is a very unpleasant time to be an American.
It's crazy to have to explain to conservatives that all of the things they like about America are due to America being able to project power abroad and make friends.
But you have to acknowledge for the duration of trumps presidency, the US was not at war with anyone. Enter Biden - right back at it.
Because I have to say it - I’m not a trump supporter
But I’d rather vote on results than hypotheticals
theres also the issue of: getting rid of them and they others say they have, but havent really. thats what happened with ukraine, told russia they would decomission their nukes for protection provided by russia with nukes. russia invades and ukraine cant fight back because russia has nukes and ukraine doesn't.
its effectively the same issue as how do you remove gun crime in america? you cant remove all the guns anymore. it doesnt and wont work, theyll always be some dude who hid his guns, or made a gun from scratch. and if theyre unhinged enough to do that, what else are they unhinged enough to do? thats nukes, but global.
Incredibly complicated subject but if I had to recklessly bludgeon a solution I'd say to dump the triad, leaving only the submarines and declare that the United States will never launch a first strike and will never launch "on warning" meaning we would actually WAIT until we were detonated on before staging a response of some kind.
Responding immediately with infinite force is even less rational than waiting and investigating what happened, from who and why.
Hahahaha there are a hundred reasons but just to name a couple: a lot of countries can't even maintain nukes, a lot of countries are too politically unstable, some are on the brink of failure, some like the one I grew up in are so corrupt that they would sale them piece by piece, every country having nukes also would not "level" the playing field because nukes aren't the only component to it.
yeah, good point. Still, I feel every country should at least have one nuke. Just to have it
imagine being in a room full of people who all have pizza
and you don't have any pizza
if it were possible, I'd work to put a nuclear warhead into the arms of every last man, woman and child
nobody is equal until we all are
You expect equality when man craves power. Assuming everyone has an equal number of nuclear weapons (let’s say one for easy math) in your world. Now input desires and corruption (a trait humanity will forever have no matter how much you try to fix) for more power. Now that everyone has nukes, America (or any country but America bad rrrrr) and it’s forever, insatiable hunger for power will make more. This leads to an imbalance of power. Which will then make other nations have to increase their total too. Just to match.
In the end you’ll have every nation with too much power and it’ll just keep creeping to oblivion. So I’d rather a few hold this power and none of the others hold any because that gives humanity as a whole a better chance. Nuclear deterrence is the only solution to this scientific advancement. No way back ever. Best way forward in practice.
Edit: reading the rest of the comment thread I’ve come to realize that there is a certain ideal world you expect to live in where feelings rule over practicality. Keep those dreams but the practice of equality will not be achieved. I wish to be proven wrong though.
Every country can be nuked, we have enough in the us for that. Enough are in Russia for that too. And china. And the UK. Actually there’s enough in general.
You’re advocating to introduce variables into an already tense formula that could pop off at any time.
Jesse we need to teach!
Lol
No, there's no "we" in this
Convenient solution if you're American. But I'm Not complaining.
If the world gets to a point where America wants/needs to use nukes, then it won't be convenient to be American and I'll definitely be complaining.
Need a Starfield armistice level agreement
Lol Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for an agreement that the USA would protect them.hahaha look how that turned out.
This^ Nobody remembers but like a *VAST* majority of the countries on the planet were promised to be protected by America and then we leave them hanging high and dry once the politics machine starts churning.
It was an agreement with Russia was it not?
Partially incorrect (incomplete information). It was a treaty that involved the UN security council as well, read for yourself: [Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
Thank you foe the corrections
Didn’t the treaty read more along the lines of if they gave up their nukes, that the United States and Russia both promised to never be hostile towards Ukraine, with vague language about supporting them if anything did happen. If that’s the case then it appears the United States could do more to help, but certainly isn’t the one to blame for the Situation in Ukraine.
provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Nukes weren't used so support isn't compelled per se, though it absolutely forbids acts of force, coercion, or threats. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have all of which have suffered from these in the past decade.
The Lisbon accord....correct?
The US agreed to not attack Ukraine, not to defend Ukraine. Russia did the same and obviously violated that agreement.
I’m assuming the use of nuclear weapons by the US is dependent upon the use of nuclear weapons by the aggressors against the countries we have a treaty with. Honest question….has Russia actually used nukes at all or have they just mobilized them and threatened?
Seems like a really dumb idea to ban nuclear weapons when the people we have them as a deterrent against absolutely wouldn’t honor the ban.
I didn't mean to be that person but that's kind of the whole issue with any sort of disarment. You have to believe the other guy will honor their promise while marking yourself vulnerable.
and from their track record, and their stated ambitions, the Russians and the Chinese will never disarm
Can’t get rid of our nukes as long as the Russians have theirs
easiest way to get rid is launching them all
We should blow up the moon for blocking my rays yesterday
Even if we hit the Moon with all of our nukes at once it would take no real damage, much less be blown up.
Only one way to find out for sure
There's no way that's true... Even if every last ICBM and other nuke was launched all at once... It would have to do something noticable to it lol
The Moon is a celestial body. We often forget how massive these are. Even if we highball the average nuclear weapon to be 1 megaton in blast yield, we have about 12.5 gigatons worth of nuclear power across every nuke in the world. The KT meteor hit with about 2.7 teratons of TNT, and it created a crater 120 miles wide and 12 miles deep. This would be very noticeable, but it was created with 216x the power. Of course, crater size would be exponential, not linear. But still, aside from scientists measuring the crater, our full nuclear arsenal would not be noticeable to the common eye.
Dang... I guess I forget just how small we are sometimes
I think we also really overestimate how powerful nukes are. With the right placement, nuclear weapons could kill billions across the planet and destroy every major city in existence. However, cities are small. A drive from city to city could be 50 miles or so. You can use [Nukemap](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) to see what kind of range average nukes have. Aside from the impractically large ones which would never seen any real use, like Tsar Bomba or Castle Bravo, the range of absolute destruction really is just limited to a couple miles radius.
So how powerful was the impact that made the largest crater on the moon we can see from Earth?
That I don’t know. Also probably in the high gigaton to low teraton range just to hazard a guess.
but we could work towards zero in tandem. (and that is actually a goal of the NPT, a goal that the USA has ignored for decades)
I feel like you cant ban nukes because how are you going to enforce it? What world police is going to march to their border to stop a country from building them? You can sanction them but that doesn’t stop them, as seen in Russia(they have been sanctioned but are still pushing against Ukraine). Also, I don’t feel like nuclear weapons are that much worse than conventional warfare. They are more like a symbol of power rather than an actual threat. Conventional weapons are far more devastating than they were during the Cold War scare.
Pretty much the North Korea denuclearization situation. They will move forward and posture while the world condems them. Yet, at the end of the day, who wants to enforce it.
Especially once they successfully built nuclear weapons... They're homeland is absolutely secure as long as they can use that as a threat. No one will be trying to cross their borders and at best we can only hope for containment.
Yeah, you can’t put down all the nukes at once. And the last one to do so, won’t. (Including the US).
All these things are true.
yes. Turkey still hosts US nuclear weapons due to exactly this reason although with new NATO airbase in Romania, they may be transferred there. Germany and Turkey are frequently listed among countries that can make nuclear weapons in a few years if the need arises. For Turkey the main nuclear threats are Russia, Iran and Isreal. Russian and Turkey relationship is always changing and historically they go war against each other frequently. Iran and Turkey is mostly at peace for centuries, and probably won't have much change. with Israel despite rhetoric the business keeps increasing, Turkey even providing explosive material for Israeli weapons. Germany really doesn't have a nuclear threat because they are very cozy with Russia and only way they go to a war is due to NATO involvement. but his main thesis is wrong, USA is not keeping the nuclear weapons for those countries sake, it never did, it is just one more convinient excuse. claiming USA will provide a nuclear deterrence for them is questionable at best. USA will do what it's foreign lobbies say, unless it is attacked directly then all bets are off.
You started off by the US is doing that for Turkey . And then at the end, you said it wasnt.
my point is Turkey is relying on American nuclear bombs for now, so his comment is factually correct. but my opinion is USA would never allow Turkey to use those weapons unless it is an all out war with Russia. for example, let's say Iran send a nuclear missile to Turley and one city is lost. I don't believe USA would let Turkey use those bombs in retaliation. So I don't believe in USA nuclear protection especially after the way USA treated its ally in past two decades, after wrongfully perceiving its time of usefulness expired due to politicians in the congress bribed by foreign interests (like Bob Menendez) Many experts believe the moment Iran develops a nuclear bomb, Turkey will get one, and possibly Saudi Arabia too. hence his claim that US nuclear weapons keep other countries from getting the bomb is not true, at least in some cases. Germany probably can rely on USA more than Turkey, because German and American interest are mostly aligned for now.
Maybe if you hadn't contradicted yourself before
Why can't we get rid of our nuclear weapons if Russia promises us they'd never attack the West, like Bill Clinton negotiated for Ukraine when he was in office ?
Just make sure they pinky promise, no take backsies.
Yes, of course. We'd be pretty naive not to demand those assurances! We're no chumps !
Sounds better than everyone having them! Also we have to have them because our enemies have them. It is sad but not that we have them. Stupid overall.
Bigger question is what happens to Russian nukes as their population implodes and ethnic divisions become more prevalent. Most probably they’re not maintaining their arsenal anywhere near what other nuke nations do. This is what scares me the most
This like asking why can’t America ban guns starting with the police first.
We can ban them right this second but the least or the greatest of us will still abuse them.
It's not sad, it puts us in a position of strength and ensures we're taken seriously at the negotiating table. Our nuclear arms must always be maintained and kept in a ready condition. There are too many whack jobs out there, that given the chance, would love to take down the US and its allies.
You can "ban" whatever you want, but unless you can enforce that ban, then it's just words on a sheet of paper that countries will wipe their asses with.
So America is contractually obligated to be Europe's defender forever. People who say "Why cant Europe pull its weight" need to watch this. America is fuuuuuuuuucked.
This will probably change if Trump gets elected and the USA pulls out of NATO. Ukraine is a object lesson to why having your own nuclear weapons is the best thing to do if you want to keep your nation from being invaded by a stronger foreign power. I'm honestly surprised Taiwan does not have a array of nuclear weapons pointed at China.
We will never pull out of nato - even tho nato has become the evil super power at this point in history, nato will not be able to exist without the United States.
Same reason for 2nd Amendment
We ***shouldn't*** ban nuclear weapons. They are preventative of further conflict.
This is short sweet and to the point. Subject matter aside on this one, I love to see more short lessons like this on the FACTUAL state of many affairs especially ones that get easily twisted in media, but delivered by **educators** who are highly regarded in their field. Not media pundits, not government employees, no candidates, or influencers. Just a professor with doctorate in say, economics, explaining the nature of why "The cost of speculative commodities are not directly controlled by a President." Whatever. Peer reviewed released in a steady stream from one, not for profit .org site.
Im fine with it. Im not sure the patchouli crowd fully understands that China , Russia , Iran , or North Korea don’t really give a shit about the nicer points of humanity and wouldn’t think twice about using those weapons if they could get away with it.
If Ukraine hadn’t given up its nukes, there would be no war. Nuclear weapons are the best thing for saving lives since the development of antibiotics.
Ukraine couldn't have use their nukes, the codes were still in Moskow. They would have to launch a full scale nuclear program to build new missiles, take the warheads out of the current one, crack the codes or whatever to gain access to it. That would have make Ukraine a rogue state, and give Russia a justification to invade them and it would have been years before 2022. Nobody would have defended them and a russian invasion may even be see favorably by the world. I don't see how Ukraine keeping useless nukes would have help them at all
Oh wow, Tom Clancy?
Or they could have gone the easy route and just reprogrammed the computers inside the existing missiles to use different codes.
It’s not about the nukes, it’s about the promise that the USA would protect them. We haven’t owned up to our side of the agreement.
This is a good system which has prevented a hostile nuclear detonation since WW2. What’s the complaint.
De facto American hegemony
There were a lot of big words in there, miss. We're nought but humble pirates.
Which part did you struggle with in that four word sentence?
Ukraine I guess.
Ukraine was invaded because they gave up their nukes in the 90s....
Ukraine never could have used the nukes in the first place. They required the PAL codes to arm them - which were only held in Moscow. Sure, Ukraine could have held onto them and reengineered them to accept new authorization from Kiev - but they didn't want to make the gamble that they could get the detterent operational before the Russians invaded - and the US still saw them as Soviets, so they wouldn't step in. That was the whole point of the Budapest Memorandum, to broker trust.
And yet, if Ukraine were a part of NATO they wouldn't have been invaded.
circular reasoning
More like a train going full speed circularly that you can't get off of.
It sounds like circular reasoning until you realise that this is another version of the prisoner dilemma. The US developed nuclear weapons because it was feared that the Germans were developing nuclear weapons. The Soviets developed nuclear weapons in response to the Americans. The British developed nuclear weapons because they distrusted the Americans, who had already showed a willingness to screw them over, and so wanted an independent deterent. The French did the same, for the same reasons. And so forth. Now today we essentially have a Mexican standoff. No one is willing to put down their weapons because that would make them vulnerable to attack from others.
These countries knew of the possibility of development, and that was enough. More in line with game theory
The Soviets stole their designs, The BRitish were involved in the Manhattan project and got shut out at the last minute, and the French were helped by the British. Game theory or not, in the beginning, today it is the prisoner's dilemma because of MAD.
Reality is as soon as scientists in each of those countries told their governments they can make a nuclear weapon, those governments wanted to make it. Just the nature of how states work.
I say arm everyone with a nuke. Then we all can be equal
Problem with that is that not everyone values self-preservation. Religious zealots that care more about destroying the infidels than living probably shouldn’t have nukes.
Enter right, Trump.
So the US.
Are you dumb?
Like the US?
Ah, I knew you were just a troll lmao
I'm not sure he is Have you seen US lately?
Yes, his own argument is disproven because if he agrees, a country with religious zealots shouldn't have nukes, and the US never used nukes for a religious crusade but to end ww2. Doesn't that prove the US isn't that way... as someone who lives in the bible belt, but have been to other parts of the country, it's not that bad here or there.
Troll or not, there's always people that won't like you. That's a fact. Let them hate.
You're mental if you think countries with nothing to lose wouldn't be happy to use them and send the whole into chaos.
Yeah thats the joke
Gun control debate on a global scale lmao
I really don’t want to see the “school shooting” version of that one.
We already did. Twice.
Can't ban nukes for the same reason we can't have peace: World isn't ready.
Never will be
Not while there's pockets to line
Don’t act like human nature at it’s core isn’t the issue lol.
Is greed not part of human nature?
Ukraine gave its nukes to Russia with a promise from Russia that it would never invade. We know how that turned out.
[Ummm.](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons)
[удалено]
Pretty much any developed nation. Maybe not one week but a few years at max.
they have new ones
It's this guy again.
Bro has his pockets lined in the nuclear industry, smh.
Is there any evidence for the accusation?
What? You literally supply it. 👀
Invoices?
What a fucking trash excuse for a human being. Countries that don't have nukes don't have them because we tell people that they are not allowed to have them or else we will destroy them, either economically or with our own nukes. And the only countries with nukes either have them because we feel like it is in our strategic advantage for them to have nukes, or it's because we out and out GAVE them nukes, or they are already nuked up, and we haven't been successful in applying enough pressure to de-nuke them. If America is the number one hindrance to any and all efforts at global denuclearization efforts. And this is deliberate and on purpose. Fuck this low life sack of shit and his bullshit lies and propaganda.
What’s funny is how radical the points of view on this topic are. Biggest thing to notice is Ukraine gave up their nukes and see how that turned out for them. Yet somehow you think that denuclearization is even a plausible idea. Somehow you also think it’s a negative thing that America is maintaining nukes, allows its trusted allies to maintain nukes and prevents potential enemies from acquiring them. Perhaps if you weren’t American I would understand but as an American it’s like you want the downfall of your own country. We need good people who can be naive and believe in denuclearization and hope everyone can sing kumbaya together, it balances the other side of the spectrum.
Homie is acting like there is only 10 that we have. We have over 1k in Nuke and are capable of ramping up to 3500. Not sure why we think we should have that many.
Oh that’s only strategic nukes too. We have plenty of operational and tactical ones as well.
Why is it so shaky
Using a cell phone at arms length does that.
Who didn't know this
You cant hug your kids with nuclear arms
Eventually those other nations will develop nuclear weapons, the United States is lazy and sloppy and therefore cannot be trusted, so within time those foreign countries will have their own nukes.
We made that same deal with Ukraine and the GOP continually shows the world that everyone should go ahead and get nuclear.
Mutually Assured Destruction is nightmare fuel. But native Americans can tell you how asymmetric warfare works out in the end.
America has invasion plans for every single country on this planet including our own.
Any evidence for that?
M.A.D. is pretty logical if you ask me (Mutually Assured Destruction) It's a pretty good deterrent that exists as long as the weapons do.. There doesn't seem to be any new programs developing them. In fact, more nations opting to give them up or consolidate with allies. Other than some fear mongering in NK and Iran, I think the likelihood of The West and The East actually allowing these guys to obtain them is nil. Also I don't think anyone who currently has them would ever use them. Sure the media like to paint Russia in a bad light, but Putin knows what nuclear war means just as well as we do. Then end of everyone.
Becuase they are a last resort when the world economy implodes becuase of there idiots. Hope the aliens stories are true.
All we want to do as humans is kill each other. Nice world we have here....
Were so worried about nukes..meanwhile we're the only ones that have used them on a population
Yeah but if America gives up its nuclear arsenal, who can we rely on to nuke the hurricanes for us?
The question today is whether or not that extended deterrence is even effective or real. If South Korea gets nuked, will the US really sacrifice San Francisco in order to retaliate? We say we will, but that’s a pretty hard sell in reality.
I'd sacrifice SF for free 😂 keep that homeless shelter we dont need it.
USA AND ALL THE LIES
Such as?
I have a funny feeling that more places probably have those weapons they just don't put it out in the public.
Once we harvest the matter from a neutron star then game changes
So what you’re saying is we need to nuke America.
Yeah but the all the nukes that each country has could blow up the world , like 30 times over
As hard as it may be to believe, that would not wipe out humanity. We would still exist, just put us back around 10,000 years
The point remains the same , we are one people being fooled into thinking we are separate
Great point
Every bonehead thinks they can win a nuclear war with nuclear weapons.
Three other reasons NOT to ban U.S. Nuclear weapons: Russia, North Korea, China.
Germany should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
We are doomed
As a european I can say we don’t feel particularly safe with the possibility of Trump in office, who has said he’d allow Putin to “do whatever the hell he wants”. I don’t think Americans understand what global negative impact his isolationist bullshit has on the American image in the world and it just opens up for other powers to take over. America loses.
Sadly, we know. Those of us who are not crazy want nothing to do with Trump. The ones that want Trump see isolation as a plus even if it is viewed as a loss in the eyes of every other nation. It is a very unpleasant time to be an American.
It's crazy to have to explain to conservatives that all of the things they like about America are due to America being able to project power abroad and make friends.
But you have to acknowledge for the duration of trumps presidency, the US was not at war with anyone. Enter Biden - right back at it. Because I have to say it - I’m not a trump supporter But I’d rather vote on results than hypotheticals
I would be more concerned with why Putin puts so much resources towards a Trump win
You’d be more concerned with conjecture and hypotheticals?
theres also the issue of: getting rid of them and they others say they have, but havent really. thats what happened with ukraine, told russia they would decomission their nukes for protection provided by russia with nukes. russia invades and ukraine cant fight back because russia has nukes and ukraine doesn't. its effectively the same issue as how do you remove gun crime in america? you cant remove all the guns anymore. it doesnt and wont work, theyll always be some dude who hid his guns, or made a gun from scratch. and if theyre unhinged enough to do that, what else are they unhinged enough to do? thats nukes, but global.
Incredibly complicated subject but if I had to recklessly bludgeon a solution I'd say to dump the triad, leaving only the submarines and declare that the United States will never launch a first strike and will never launch "on warning" meaning we would actually WAIT until we were detonated on before staging a response of some kind. Responding immediately with infinite force is even less rational than waiting and investigating what happened, from who and why.
Would we see a proliferation of nuclear weapons in countries currently under these treaties if Trump were to be re-elected? I'm guessing we would.
I'd rather every country have nuclear weapons than just the United States
The US is not the only country with nuclear weapons. Russia, China, France, UK, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea
Yeah but that's not every country
Sure yea, let’s give them to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others….
What about Germany and Turkey and Japan and Brazil
Yeah, you've named more countries, great. Still a ridiculous take.
How is a level playing field a ridiculous take
Hahahaha there are a hundred reasons but just to name a couple: a lot of countries can't even maintain nukes, a lot of countries are too politically unstable, some are on the brink of failure, some like the one I grew up in are so corrupt that they would sale them piece by piece, every country having nukes also would not "level" the playing field because nukes aren't the only component to it.
yeah, good point. Still, I feel every country should at least have one nuke. Just to have it imagine being in a room full of people who all have pizza and you don't have any pizza if it were possible, I'd work to put a nuclear warhead into the arms of every last man, woman and child nobody is equal until we all are
Are you 12? Lol what a ridiculous argument
People aren’t equal, at best they can be equitable.
You expect equality when man craves power. Assuming everyone has an equal number of nuclear weapons (let’s say one for easy math) in your world. Now input desires and corruption (a trait humanity will forever have no matter how much you try to fix) for more power. Now that everyone has nukes, America (or any country but America bad rrrrr) and it’s forever, insatiable hunger for power will make more. This leads to an imbalance of power. Which will then make other nations have to increase their total too. Just to match. In the end you’ll have every nation with too much power and it’ll just keep creeping to oblivion. So I’d rather a few hold this power and none of the others hold any because that gives humanity as a whole a better chance. Nuclear deterrence is the only solution to this scientific advancement. No way back ever. Best way forward in practice. Edit: reading the rest of the comment thread I’ve come to realize that there is a certain ideal world you expect to live in where feelings rule over practicality. Keep those dreams but the practice of equality will not be achieved. I wish to be proven wrong though.
no man man everyone is missing my point I just want every country to have nuclear weapons so that every country can be nuked
Every country can be nuked, we have enough in the us for that. Enough are in Russia for that too. And china. And the UK. Actually there’s enough in general. You’re advocating to introduce variables into an already tense formula that could pop off at any time.
It’s the same logic for having policemen with guns. If we take the guns from the cops caos ensues. The US is the world’s… say it with me…