OliveBrittle comments on I hate how people pick a side and work backwards from conclusions in literally any political argument or disagreement

[–] OliveBrittle@piefed.ca [S] 7 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

I think it's naive to think that nuclear weapons are justifiable just because someone else has nuclear weapons.

It starts an arms race and makes the overall situation worse. This type of mindset is literally how we got to this point to begin with. The U.S. built up a stockpile of nukes, to which Russia built one up, to which the U.S. built more in turn, so on, so forth.

So yes, I am of the stance still that no we should not have a nuke. Like I said previously, yes it's bad we're in a situation where the U.S. has nukes and we're left in a position where they're able to use them and we have nothing to dissuade them.

However, just because someone poisoned the punch doesn't mean we should poison it more. Franz Ferdinand's assassination in WWI started a chain of events nobody would have predicted lead to the sheer level of conflict it did. Now imagine that with nuclear weapons being exchanged by small and large countries alike.

Why should we partake in the very activity that got us to this situation to begin with? Just because we have trouble getting the big guys to get rid of them doesn't mean we should throw our hands in the air, give up, and make more of these things.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (5 children)

Countries with nuclear weapons don't get bombed or invaded by the US.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] OliveBrittle@piefed.ca [S] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

That's not enough justification. Why does the logic come down to "but my guy is better"?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Because the reality is that the DPRK will never be bombed or invaded, while countries without nuclear weapons are bombed and invaded. Hell, we don't even have to only focus on the US! Regardless of what you think about the justifications behind the war, Russia certainly wouldn't have started a war if Ukraine had its own nukes. They'd have sought any alternative possible.

It has nothing to do with anyone being "better" but with countries having an interest in their own sovereignty. If a country doesn't have nuclear weapons its sovereignty will always be in danger, because a nuclear armed country might come and kill them.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] OliveBrittle@piefed.ca [S] 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children)

So owning indiscriminate killing devices isn't a war crime until they're actively used?

I need to reiterate. Two bombs killed anywhere from 150,000 to nearly a quarter million people. Who do you think those people were? These aren't targeted devices, and they've only gotten more powerful since they were first dropped 80 years ago.

Yeah, we use them to protect ourselves now. We keep it, we don't touch it, and it's on standby to back us up.

However, Putin invading Ukraine was seen as "unthinkable", regardless of what you think of the conflict there. Trump starting a war with Iran was far from a smart decision, and yet it happened anyway. We may have sanity from our leaders not to press the button now should we acquire a nuke, but what of when someone without sanity comes into power? We create the same cycle that caused us to procure those weapons to begin with, and the arms race continues until suddenly everybody is killing hundreds of thousands of people at the press of buttons.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] molehill_siesta@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

I'm undecided on if Canada having nukes would be good or bad.

You're right that the more people that have them, the more likely someone will use them, which would be extremely bad.

But if the choices were: 1) USA invades Canada, 50,000-2,000,000 Canadians die (plus some number of Americans). 2) Canada has nukes, USA does not invade, no one dies.

How can you balance the existential danger of another country having nukes against so many deaths?

(All potential deaths, yes. But we're already solidly in theoretical territory. I sure can't accurately estimate the chances of the US invading Canada in all potential scenarios, nor can I estimate how much more likely Nuclear Armageddon is if one more country has nukes)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Two bombs killed anywhere from 150,000 to nearly a quarter million people. Who do you think those people were?

Mostly civilians, because the US loves to exterminate innocent people because it's an evil country. The US does not need nuclear weapons to kill civilians by the hundreds of thousands, though, it does that with conventional weapons every few decades.

However, Putin invading Ukraine was seen as “unthinkable”, regardless of what you think of the conflict there. Trump starting a war with Iran was far from a smart decision, and yet it happened anyway.

There's a world of difference between "bad idea that probably won't work" and "bad idea that can't work" - this idea that some craaaaazy dictator can come to power and use the nukes is a misunderstanding of how power structures work.

No matter how stupid or irrational any individual leader is they're merely the head of a much larger apparatus filled with other people who do know what they're doing. The wars against both Ukraine and Iran had a lot of other people behind them who thought it might work. There's a severe shortage of people behind the throne who think using nukes might work.

But you know what? It doesn't matter! You can't take away the any country's nukes, they'll nuke you if you try. That means you have to let everyone else have them to defend themselves and maintain sovereignty. Nuclear proliferation is inevitable, even if you don't like it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent