Well it has resulted in a younger generation that thinks its okay to attack nuclear powered states, so I think some awareness of it needs to be maintained across generations .. otherwise the thing manifests itself.
And besides which, it is actionable. The peoples of the world could actually disarm. It has happened.
Ukraine gave away its nukes and now look what’s happening. And yea, we should be attacking even nuclear armed states if they are invading others.
They are a threat that means we probably shouldn’t push a nation armed with them to the point where they feel their back against a wall, but it’s not “we get to do what we want with no resistance whatsoever” card
The USSR had nukes which were deployed in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. All command and control and other authority was completely centralized within Russia. Then the USSR collapsed in shocking rapidity, leaving these nukes in these locations. So the nukes were never theirs to begin with. It'd be like if the USA collapsed tomorrow and Germany tried to claim the US nukes located in Germany.
The reason these states returned them in exchange for a few bucks and empty assurances (which is an tautology - the difference between 'assurance' and 'guarantee' is precisely that there's no legal obligations or bindings with assurances) is because the alternative was being deemed a potentially rogue nuclear state which would have seen them rapidly invaded, very likely be a coalition of nations - viably including the US as well, and disarmed before they could manage to reverse engineer the protocols.
And yeah, Ukraine would not have been invaded if it had its own nukes, neither would Iran. It's also highly unlikely that the revolution, coup, or whatever you want to call it in 2014 would have happened if Ukraine had nukes. That involved things like John McCain giving speeches encouraging Ukrainians to overthrow their Russian-leaning president right in the center of Kyiv. [1] That was a massive power play that probably would never have happened with a nuclear state. Similar for the assassination of Soleimani in Iran, and so on. In any case, if a country wants to guarantee its sovereignty, it needs nukes.
And the reason this guarantees sovereignty is because every single country is aware of Proud Prophet [2] even if most people are not. It was a large scale nuclear wargame simulating all sorts of scenarios for 'peace through force' with nuclear weapons. In every single scenario it resulted in the defacto extinction of the Northern hemisphere. It led the US to turn away from escalation and hostility and towards reconciliation and negotiation with the USSR. Within a decade the first McDonalds would open up in the USSR, and shortly thereafter the entire USSR would collapse with Donald Duck being held up as a sign of freedom.
> And yea, we should be attacking even nuclear armed states if they are invading others.
I don’t think rolling the dice to see if a total nuclear exchange occurs is ever worth it and neither does any leader of a nuclear armed state (so far).
To save others time: it's a cartoon where Putin's in everyday situations and gets out of his responsibilities by saying "I have a nuclear bomb". First scene: Putin is sitting at a restaurant table and asked to pay. He says "no". Waiter says "but sir you have to pay." Putin says "I have a nuclear bomb." Waiter says "Okay sir, enjoy your dinner."
Second scene: Parking warden catches Putin in a disabled space, says "I have a nuclear bomb", warden leaves him alone.
Third scene: Putin's playing a card game and making up the rules, opponent objects, Putin says "I have a nuclear bomb", opponent lets him do whatever.
Fourth scene: Putin cuts to the front of a line, says "I have a nuclear bomb", but the person he cut in front of (apparently Biden) says "I also have a nuclear bomb", but Putin says "but I have a nuclear bomb and I'm crazy", and the guy lets him stay at the front of the line.
There's a good comment too: "Missed opportunity. At the end, in line, when [Biden] points out to Putin, "Look, I have a nuclear bomb too," the others in line should have gotten angry with him, saying things like, "You see, you're a bully?", "What are you doing, threatening? Reckless!", "You're provoking him!", and Orsini should have appeared and said, "This is how we risk escalation!" "
Well it has resulted in a younger generation that thinks its okay to attack nuclear powered states, so I think some awareness of it needs to be maintained across generations .. otherwise the thing manifests itself.
And besides which, it is actionable. The peoples of the world could actually disarm. It has happened.
If you get attacked by a nuclear state there is nit mucb you can do but attack back. Unless you want to roll over and give up.
Turns out some countries are sufficiently shit that it's worth the risk.
We're not attacking any nuclear powered states.
They're attacking us.
lol at the subtle propaganda.
Ukraine gave away its nukes and now look what’s happening. And yea, we should be attacking even nuclear armed states if they are invading others.
They are a threat that means we probably shouldn’t push a nation armed with them to the point where they feel their back against a wall, but it’s not “we get to do what we want with no resistance whatsoever” card
The USSR had nukes which were deployed in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. All command and control and other authority was completely centralized within Russia. Then the USSR collapsed in shocking rapidity, leaving these nukes in these locations. So the nukes were never theirs to begin with. It'd be like if the USA collapsed tomorrow and Germany tried to claim the US nukes located in Germany.
The reason these states returned them in exchange for a few bucks and empty assurances (which is an tautology - the difference between 'assurance' and 'guarantee' is precisely that there's no legal obligations or bindings with assurances) is because the alternative was being deemed a potentially rogue nuclear state which would have seen them rapidly invaded, very likely be a coalition of nations - viably including the US as well, and disarmed before they could manage to reverse engineer the protocols.
And yeah, Ukraine would not have been invaded if it had its own nukes, neither would Iran. It's also highly unlikely that the revolution, coup, or whatever you want to call it in 2014 would have happened if Ukraine had nukes. That involved things like John McCain giving speeches encouraging Ukrainians to overthrow their Russian-leaning president right in the center of Kyiv. [1] That was a massive power play that probably would never have happened with a nuclear state. Similar for the assassination of Soleimani in Iran, and so on. In any case, if a country wants to guarantee its sovereignty, it needs nukes.
And the reason this guarantees sovereignty is because every single country is aware of Proud Prophet [2] even if most people are not. It was a large scale nuclear wargame simulating all sorts of scenarios for 'peace through force' with nuclear weapons. In every single scenario it resulted in the defacto extinction of the Northern hemisphere. It led the US to turn away from escalation and hostility and towards reconciliation and negotiation with the USSR. Within a decade the first McDonalds would open up in the USSR, and shortly thereafter the entire USSR would collapse with Donald Duck being held up as a sign of freedom.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet
Literally, who said anything about Ukraine?
> And yea, we should be attacking even nuclear armed states if they are invading others.
I don’t think rolling the dice to see if a total nuclear exchange occurs is ever worth it and neither does any leader of a nuclear armed state (so far).
Guess Russia gets to do as it pleases.
https://youtu.be/2LEM-PZn1a4 This comedy really captured the general idea (put automated English subtitles)
To save others time: it's a cartoon where Putin's in everyday situations and gets out of his responsibilities by saying "I have a nuclear bomb". First scene: Putin is sitting at a restaurant table and asked to pay. He says "no". Waiter says "but sir you have to pay." Putin says "I have a nuclear bomb." Waiter says "Okay sir, enjoy your dinner."
Second scene: Parking warden catches Putin in a disabled space, says "I have a nuclear bomb", warden leaves him alone.
Third scene: Putin's playing a card game and making up the rules, opponent objects, Putin says "I have a nuclear bomb", opponent lets him do whatever.
Fourth scene: Putin cuts to the front of a line, says "I have a nuclear bomb", but the person he cut in front of (apparently Biden) says "I also have a nuclear bomb", but Putin says "but I have a nuclear bomb and I'm crazy", and the guy lets him stay at the front of the line.
There's a good comment too: "Missed opportunity. At the end, in line, when [Biden] points out to Putin, "Look, I have a nuclear bomb too," the others in line should have gotten angry with him, saying things like, "You see, you're a bully?", "What are you doing, threatening? Reckless!", "You're provoking him!", and Orsini should have appeared and said, "This is how we risk escalation!" "