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 di…
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?
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?