• DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Nuclear proliferation is just incredibly risky

    You could argue, convincingly, that it’s incredibly risky not to.

    Ukraine.

    They made a deal with Russia to give up their nukes in exchange for Russia never invading them. Fast forward a handful of years and Russia invades them and they have no nukes as deterrent.

    We’re moving into a future where everyone is going to need nukes as a deterrent from being invaded.

    Sucks, but humans are stupid, violent animals.

    • Dearche@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is why I mentioned France and UK’s nuclear umbrella. It’s effectively the power of having nuclear weapons without actually having them.

      Ukraine had the unfortunate fact that they only got a promise of nonintervention rather than a security guarantee backed by arms when they gave up their nukes.

      Either way, while not having nukes might not entirely prevent others from pushing harder to get nukes of their own, at the very least, I believe we shouldn’t be the ones starting this trend. It only takes one country with an itchy trigger finger to normalize using nukes in armed conflicts, which is one step away from preemptive nuclear war.

    • MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Fun fact, the US also provided security assurances. (Budapest memorandum.) Those turned out well, right?