142
Hiroshima marks a-bomb anniversary, calls nuclear deterrence "folly"
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
142 points (97.3% liked)
World News
31441 readers
953 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
The only way we will ever remove nuclear weapons will be when we remove the threat from invasive and terrorist actions of other countries. We need an international force that is set up just to protect the status quo of borders around the world. With that we also need an answer to terrorism from foreign states. As soon as you make it impossible for an invasion to take place then you can guarantee that some states will head straight to terrorist acts for intimidation. Until all countries sign up to this, we must keep the deterrent.
Imagine how could be saved if we removed the need to spend on defence. Currently we spend $2.2t across the world on killing each other. It is a shocking waste.
Sure... as if there will be anyone who escalates with nuclear weapons against teerorists ever.
Or in other words: never.
I don't know. I am confident that money will find a way. Look at the cost of the Ukraine war on China as well as Russia. It is in no one's financial interests to commit to a war these days. Putin is indicative of the world's weak spot. When individuals use their state for personal gain, everyone looses. If the world used a combined effort to prevent invasions by forcefully pushing invaders back into their countries, then even these types of actors can be neutered.
How would you prevent the US from doing such things? That would mean turning Europe against its biggest ally and it's not something I see feasible, giving they are the country that most wars and invasions has caused, and the fact that throughout history Europe hasn't done anything to prevent such things tells me it's not something that's going to change. Your example only works because it's a common enemy for both the US and Europe.
Well unless all sign up to it then it would not happen. In other words, you won't.
How have nuclear weapons helped us against invasive and terrorist actions?
Has it somehow stopped conflicts between major powers (NATO, Russia, China)? No more than would be expected from countries that don't really order each other and aren't pursuing aggressive territorial expansion that threaten each other.
Has it ended all wars? Obviously not, given that Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine all happened.
Has a nuclear deterrent made nations more peaceful? No, but globalization has.
A nuclear deterrent exists solely to discourage other nuclear-bearing countries from trying to cripple you. The only steady-state for this is that everyone who is under threat by a nuclear-bearing country will eventually develop nuclear weapons.
In recent history: the Americans because of the Nazis, the Soviets because of the Americans, the British because of the Soviets, the French because of the Soviets (and, to some degree, the British), the Chinese because of the Americans AND the Soviets (they really got unlucky here), the Israelis because of literally everyone (extra unlucky), the Indians because of the Chinese, the Pakistanis is because of the Indians, and the North Koreans because of the Americans. And of course, today Iran is trying to build up a nuclear arsenal to combat Israel's nuclear arsenal.
All your policy will do is incentivize everyone to develop nuclear weapons.
I really do not understand your comments? I am in favour of removing nuclear weapons. I also understand why we cannot without a unilateral understanding among all nations.
What is very obvious is that if we do not move in that direction, then some clown will learn how to make them, and then we will have a nuclear war.
Why does the removal of nuclear weapons predicate itself on countries agreeing on borders? As it stands, countries develop nuclear weapons solely because they're afraid that nuclear weapons will be used against them (or, you're North Korea and the West has already expended their entire sanctions repertoire to go after human rights violations and now has no recourse against nuclear weapons development).
Countries may fight over borders, but the involvement of nuclear weapons turns what should be a localized dispute into a global one with world-ending consequences.
Or you know they could just stop trying to grab more land. At the end of the day that is the solution we all want.
Protecting the territorial sovereignty of countries internationally would have prevented Iraq and Afghanistan. It would stop Israeli efforts in the West Bank. It would block the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. It would block the skirmishes between India and China as well as India and Pakistan. It would have blocked NATO intervention into the Yugoslav crisises until international consensus could be reached. Borders are constantly in a state of flux and the international community almost never reaches full consensus.
Borders are not immutable objects, particularly for ethnically-unified countries. For Yugoslavia, the borders were carved into ethnic groups. For Ukraine, the borders are being carved into Russian and Ukrainian areas. For Israel, the borders are constantly being expanded for one particular ethnic group. As long as there are ethnic boundaries, there will be conflict between them. That's what makes us human. We are not a single entity; we have hundreds of distinct and unique cultures and languages and foods.
NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian conflict was humanitarian only. They were criticised for not participating to stop massacres that they witnessed.
Civil wars would be a difficult one. They would probably have to enforce the right to self determination, but even then cases like Israel complicates even this.
Terrorism is the product of the West financing such groups in proxy wars.
the West isn't the only one who does this bud
You are right, they're only the biggest and more illustrious example of such behaviour.
Except the west does not try to take over that country and hold onto it as a colony. They have grew out of that era. Every country that has been invaded, has been in response to another action, and in every occasion they have handed the country back to the people it belongs to. How they have handed it back leaves a lot to criticise. But you cannot say it was done with malice. Russia is guilty of extending its borders into other countries for no other reason than conquest.
Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, northern Mexico which is now Texas, all of this without taking into account that the US is itself a settler state that massacred all its indigenous population and that literally inspired Nazi Germany. I haven't even mentioned territories which are still colonies to this day by Europe by the way.
Hawaii is a state in its own right. Under that delusion you have 49 other instances. They elected to join the USA in 1959.
Samoa was colonised in 1899, no one argues that things were done in the past. Samoa has been self governing since 1967. It has the capacity to hold a referendum to move away from being an "unincorporated territory".
Northern Mariana Islands elected closer ties to the US because Guam did not want them through a referendum.
Texas has been part of the US since the civil war ended. Half of the world has changed since then.
I agree indigenous tribes should have rights, but how that is applied is always going to be contentious because of the generations that have past. It is not like you can tell the majority of a nation to go live somewhere else is it? As for the tribes concerned, they were kicking the crap out of each other before the Spanish arrived. How far do you go back to say who owns the rights to that land?
You really should research before buying into the crap people spout online.
Nice how you fail to mention any actual context:
Hawaii was illegally annexed in 1898, then -against the native's resistence- controlled by an US appointed government in 1900.
The the US shipped in more soldiers, especially when Hawaii's importance as a naval base in the pacific increased after ww1.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the US had 500000 people stationed there... about the same amount as living natives at that point. But just to be sure, they dissolved the local government and declared martial law for nearly a decade.
And after all this and with more and more US citizens immigrating to Hawaii on top of the massive amount of soldiers stationed there and finally making Hawaii natives a minority in their own country the US started a referendum to join the US.
Sure, that's not fishy bullshit at all.
And again how far do you go back? They elected to become a member state. You can always meander through history to justify any cause, at some point you have to accept the status quo or we will never end wars.
you mean the only one most open about it which is why they have a problem with conspiracy theory folks.
china, russia, Saudi arabia.
you think they're open about what their dark money funds? do they have any openness about any illicit behavior by their government? no. they lie about it or there is never a chance it is heard about because of a massive lack of transparency
the problem is all of these governments and when you do what you're doing now, you just serve as a pawn in their game.
china is literally funding russia right now against Ukraine, puppet state war. saudi arabia funds zealots all over africa and the middle east - sudan, jordan, nigeria
they all do it
Releasing files of black ops you did 50 years ago is not being open about it, the US would never publish black ops they are doing now because otherwise it would undermine the effects of such proxy wars. Furthermore, much of what we now is not so much releasing that information but because there are brave whistleblowers who release information regarding the war crimes.
Still, I don't see how the fact that some other countries do maybe similar stuff, since again it is all theories since until information is released we cannot confirm anything (not that I doubt some countries do fund military groups) that doesn't make my statement that the West has the biggest and most illustrious history of funding terrorist groups in what they deem enemies of the West.
no there is no maybe here. they absolutely do.
you're arguing until we get information we can't say anything so we can only say america is the worst and that is so disingenuous and foolish, history alone shows this is how politics work at this level
the west does this i 100% agree they invented the term banana republic but vassal states have existed since before america and things like cultural or religious ties cross geopolitical boundaries. every one with money influences other people towards their goal and people like Xi, Mohammed bin Salman, Putin own economies to bend towards their goals and these are likely either for life rulers or from families who are for life rulers
how do you simply believe they dont engage in this behavior? its foolish
Pretty stupid generalisation. Terrorism comes from many areas including governments. Putin's attack on citizens in the UK was state terrorism against his own people.
Yes, Western governments that fund terrorist groups in "enemies of the State" that later turn against the US and the US "needs" to go an invade those countries to "liberate" the region.
The whole world does that. This is not just a problem that lies with one country.
You mean... The US and Russia?
Not even China does this.
Says one of the few countries actually doing it to justify they illegal shit.
Did you read the comment? It looks like you did not. I am in favour of removing all armies across the world. Please do not make explosive statements without taking the time to understand the conversation.