• lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ukraine unfortunately became a reminder that nuclear weapons are still required for the safety of a nation. Ukraine gave theirs up after the crumble of the Sovjet Union for assurances of independence and sovereignty by other nations, including russia. Since russia disrespected these guarantees, they showed they can’t be trusted and every nation that does not want to be attacked by russia will henceforth need nuclear deterrent. It’s unfortunate and sad, but there is no future for nuclear disarmament while russia still has nukes.

    • quarry_coerce248@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      You can say the same about the US. Nuclear armament seems to be the most effective way to avoid getting bombed or invaded by the US. Iran is still figuring out whether to become the next Afghanistan/Iraq or North Korea.

      What there is a future for is nuclear disarmament in the US and in Russia because it’s kinda pointless to kill the whole planet a hundred times over. Every other country needs to be persuaded and needs to trust both the US and Russia. Tough luck, I agree. But there was a time when this was possible in the 80s under no less ruthless imperialist leaderships.

      There are already nukes in Europe, specifically in France and the UK. Maybe the Netherlands should get some too to avoid getting invaded when US war criminals are put on trial.