• SleafordMod@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    This reminds me of a discussion I was having with Hexbear members on Lemmy recently.

    I was suggesting that perhaps it makes sense for the UK to have nukes, for self-defence against other nuclear countries like Russia, China, and potentially even the US, given their unpredictable behaviour. People from Hexbear got angry at this suggestion. One of them suggested that it’s immoral to have nukes because nukes are “threatening civilians”.

    Maybe the OP image of this thread is right though: megalomaniacs are not deterred by words, but they are deterred by weapons (such as nukes). Ukraine was invaded because they didn’t have enough deterrents. Iran is currently being bombed because I suppose they also didn’t have enough deterrents.

      • SleafordMod@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Exactly. If Ukraine had their own nukes by the time of 2014, or if they had been part of NATO, then maybe Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine.

          • SleafordMod@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            I think ideally there would be no nukes in the world, because they are dangerous. But nukes do exist. If western countries got rid of their nukes, then the remaining nuclear countries would be able to do what they like. “Surrender to our demands or we will nuke your cities.”

      • SleafordMod@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Potentially. I think it depends on how they’re used. If a country decides to completely disarm itself though, then it’s entirely possible that other countries will seek to invade and subjugate.