• BallyM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    2 days ago

    Threatening indiscriminate mass murder (ie “nuclear deterrence”) says more about a government than about what they believe they’re up against.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m against nuclear proliferation but Ukraine gave up theirs and Iran gave up their program. And look what happened to them.

    • Photonic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Well, it may have been better if we had never invented nukes.

      Howeverrrrr, now that we do have them: countries don’t get nukes to actually use them. They are a major stabilising factor because they are the single most deterring force in the world.

      That’s the paradox of the nuclear weapon, a most destructive force that can bring peace, a weapon that is most effective when not being used.

      • reksas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        this works up until the decision to launch them is in the hands of madmen like trump or putin. both are insane, though in different ways. putin could just decide to fuck up the planet as last fuck you before he dies, trump could decide to do it in narcissist fit. or the rich could conspire to do it to “reset” the world and rule the ashes from their bunkers.

        though personally i dont even give a fuck, i doubt even nuclear war could do more damage than we are already doing without it.