I guess that whole international "rules based order" is a lot more fickle than we're willing to admit (or selectively enforce for that matter). Taiwan better watch its fucking back lol.
I guess that whole international "rules based order" is a lot more fickle than we're willing to admit (or selectively enforce for that matter). Taiwan better watch its fucking back lol.
I did write and then delete a sub paragraph in there where I observed that there is a debate to be had about whether nuclear weapons have improved the world by preventing major powers from directly fighting, or made it worse by enabling bad actors with nukes to get away with whatever they want because the consequences of stopping them are always worse than letting them.
Two thought experiments on that: 1. What happens in Ukraine if nukes didnтАЩt exist? The likely answer IMO is тАЬweтАЩre probably already in World War III to get Russia out.тАЭ 2. What if Hitler (and most of the major former Allies) had had nukes in 1938, or if heтАЩd waited a decade to make his move until he did? The likely answer is, he probably doesnтАЩt ever invade France and the USSR, but France and Britain probably donтАЩt directly declare war to keep him away from the Czechs and the Poles, either. OR the central European countries along with Belgium and Holland put themselves under a French and British nuclear umbrella much like NATO today, and Hitler wouldve cynically picked on everyone who wasnтАЩt, much as Putin is doing today. Is that a better world than our having consigned the Nazis to the ashbins of history when they went too far? That is... highly questionable.
If nukes keep the peace then we shouldn't be worried about nuclear proliferation, we should be encouraging it. In my opinion, the inverse is the reality: the presence of nukes prevents potential world war at the expense of enabling genocide and atrocity. We didn't go into N Korea because they have nukes. We went into Iraq because they didn't. Nukes often enable countries to do awful shit without consequences because anyone who would think to stop them is too worried about nuclear retaliation--which is why we fucked up Saddam when he went into Kuwait in '91 but we didn't lay a finger on Putin when he went into Ukraine in '22. If Hitler had nukes when he launched the Blitzkreig in '40, would the US have invaded Europe in '44?
I guess that whole international "rules based order" is a lot more fickle than we're willing to admit (or selectively enforce for that matter). Taiwan better watch its fucking back lol.
I did write and then delete a sub paragraph in there where I observed that there is a debate to be had about whether nuclear weapons have improved the world by preventing major powers from directly fighting, or made it worse by enabling bad actors with nukes to get away with whatever they want because the consequences of stopping them are always worse than letting them.
Two thought experiments on that: 1. What happens in Ukraine if nukes didnтАЩt exist? The likely answer IMO is тАЬweтАЩre probably already in World War III to get Russia out.тАЭ 2. What if Hitler (and most of the major former Allies) had had nukes in 1938, or if heтАЩd waited a decade to make his move until he did? The likely answer is, he probably doesnтАЩt ever invade France and the USSR, but France and Britain probably donтАЩt directly declare war to keep him away from the Czechs and the Poles, either. OR the central European countries along with Belgium and Holland put themselves under a French and British nuclear umbrella much like NATO today, and Hitler wouldve cynically picked on everyone who wasnтАЩt, much as Putin is doing today. Is that a better world than our having consigned the Nazis to the ashbins of history when they went too far? That is... highly questionable.
If nukes keep the peace then we shouldn't be worried about nuclear proliferation, we should be encouraging it. In my opinion, the inverse is the reality: the presence of nukes prevents potential world war at the expense of enabling genocide and atrocity. We didn't go into N Korea because they have nukes. We went into Iraq because they didn't. Nukes often enable countries to do awful shit without consequences because anyone who would think to stop them is too worried about nuclear retaliation--which is why we fucked up Saddam when he went into Kuwait in '91 but we didn't lay a finger on Putin when he went into Ukraine in '22. If Hitler had nukes when he launched the Blitzkreig in '40, would the US have invaded Europe in '44?