Denmark needs the nuke too to protect it self from Russia, but also the US.
Every country needs to have a nuke, based on what we’re seeing the US and Israel do to Palestine and what Russia is doing to Ukraine.
Yes more nukes for all! Let everyone fight over old land disputes too! If we remember the history of Afghanistan, we know that nuclear weapons were crucial in their efforts to topple the USSR and the USA!
I think the best example here is North Korea actually. Nothing stops imperialists in their tracks better than a nuclear program, and if we want a more peaceful world, the answer is every country having a nuke as that inspires more diplomacy and cooperation.
How the fuck is it a good example? People are starving, their only real export is meth and the only countries pretending to deal with them are China and fucking russia. You seriously think that anyone considering taking over their territory would be worried that ancient soviet garbage will fly? Only reason Korea doesn’t take over is they know their country can’t survive infusion of starving, brainwashed masses that would take years to integrate into any modern society.
How the fuck is it a good example?
Maybe think about it a little before speaking.
Also, maybe consider your delivery.
Do you think you’re more likely to get a good response by leading off in hysterics and obscenities? Or do you think you could have led this off in a different way, such as: “I disagree for the following reasons.”
You should look up what America did to Korea before they had nukes.
!["[Chuckling] Which, if true, means death for us all."](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ddaeda1a-9991-4fb8-8a59-44000700314a.gif)
Well, that’s what happens when you elect a fascist.
Short answer is yes. Trump has proven that any alliance is useless. So every country needs the ultimate deterrent. That means nuclear and a reliable delivery system. Thats the only way Russia, the us, China or other aggressors can be held at bay. Ukraine and Venezuela probably both regretting decisions that removed their deterrent.
Short answer is yes. Trump has proven that any alliance is useless. So every country needs the ultimate deterrent.
Good point.
Any nation that wants to keep their sovereignty needs nukes. Agreements like the Budapest Memorandum were a mistake for some of the countries involved (Ukraine).
This is the correct answer.
The only thing that keeps imperialism at bay is mutually-assured destruction.
Lol, I wonder when Ukrainians will connect the dots that they’re in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain.
When did western powers promise that they would stop Putin invading Ukraine?
Ukraine is in their current position because Putin decided to invade Ukraine
Ukraine is the only nation to ever give up their nuclear weapons (after the dissolution of the USSR). At the time, they were assured by the world that their security would be provided for if there was ever a need.
I just looked at the text of the Budapest Memorandum. The US, the UK, and Russia all agreed in that memorandum to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.
Russia is the country who broke that commitment, when they invaded Ukraine in 2014. I wouldn’t say that the US or the UK broke that commitment, because they haven’t used force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.
There’s another commitment in there saying that the US, the UK, and Russia will “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine… if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression”. It seems there were UNSC meetings - like this one - shortly after Russia sent troops into Crimea. If you think the US and UK didn’t do enough in this regard then fair enough, but I don’t their actions were as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.
Semantics.
The point is Ukraine wouldn’t be in this position if they didn’t give up their Nukes, and they gave up their Nukes because they believed more would be done.
I’m talking about what was actually agreed to. To me it seems that Russia quite clearly abandoned its commitments within the Budapest Memorandum. I don’t think you can say that the US and the UK did, unless you’re saying that those two countries didn’t do enough within the UN Security Council to back Ukraine.
Surely the primary country to blame for this situation is Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Western countries didn’t invade Ukraine.
No one is placing blame here.
They’re discussing the material factors that have led to the current situation. Lack of nukes is one of those, and it’s likely that Ukraine wouldn’t be under a state of defensive war at the moment had they maintained their nuclear arsenal.
Western powers promised Ukraine protection against attack or invasion by themselves and Russia in the December 5th, 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
The US, France, UK, Russia, and China all agreed not to invade Ukraine and in fact to provide protection, and in exchange, Ukraine gave up their nukes.
Russia violated this just 20 years later when they invaded and stole Crimea from Ukraine, and now 30 years later they are trying to conquer the entire country.
Thats why everyone is so hell bent on providing support for Ukraine. Not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because they were promised protection by world powers.
I looked at the text of the Budapest Memorandum. The main commitments seem to be a commitment to not use force against Ukraine, and a commitment to “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine… if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression”.
I absolutely hope that every country supports Ukraine and helps them at the moment. I’m just saying that it seems to me that Russia is the one who has abandoned its commitments within the Budapest Memorandum. I don’t know if you can say that the US and the UK have (Wikipedia says that France and China gave assurances in separate documents, not in the Budapest Memorandum). Although I absolutely hope that the US will take a more pro-Ukraine stance as soon as possible.
I mean, I have a chaotic solution we might try. Let’s simply…reverse the Budapest Memorandum! Let’s just hand Ukraine a few hundred thermonuclear warheads, with launchers and launch codes and say, “here, go have fun!”
“The president has announced…that we have reversed the Budapest Memorandum…”
:D
Unironically this
This is scary for the increased risk of some pretty terrible outcomes but with US security guarantees as untrustworthy as they have become then actions like this are tough to argue against
If I was a South Korean or Taiwanese government official working to ensure future sovereignty, I’d be considering the same
Anyone else feeling WW3 vibes yet? No? Just me? K
Actually, no.
We’ve heard WW3 analogies tossed around for the last 30 years.
I think it’s more fair to say that we’re not facing WW3 precisely because the world has seen the destructive power of nuclear weapons and they’ve proliferated so much. That is, obviously, particularly true for Japan.
Rising fascism all over the place, what can possibly go wrong
Definitely not just you.
And all of this sits at the feet of Russia.
Ugh
Now I want to see a movie where the only country that can have nukes is the last one that got nuked.
Oh yeah what a great idea, let yet another fascist country possess nukes. What could go wrong?
Let’s see next is Germany and Italy to say it.
Norway. And let them call it their berserker force.
You missed the Axis.
Didn’t realize you were going for that off of only Japan.
“Let’s see next is Germany and Italy to say it.”
If one country has nukes, all countries should have nukes. It’s only fair.
No country should have nukes, and more countries acquiring them makes that goal even harder to achieve.
If some countries have nukes, probability of nuclear attack is high
As more countries have nukes, probability of nuclear attack drops significantly
It’s impossible to have zero countries with nukes anymore, someone will always have secret nukes, which leads to high risk
And it’s open season for those with nukes to invade others without.
This exactly. The most significant result of hoisting up nonproliferation as a virtue has been to sustain and grow US hegemony. That is a bad deal for everyone, including Americans.
As more countries have nukes, the chance goes up. More leaders have the opportunity to pull the trigger. It only takes one crazy guy taking power. Or one nuke left improperly secured, especially in an unstable country, and then it gets stolen and used, even as a dirty bomb.
This is not true, it’s called the stability instability paradox
Yeah but who’s gonna stop them? I know that’s the right answer for a pageant contestant, but be realistic.
They should choose the atomic bomb instead.
