this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
59 points (92.8% liked)
World News
32375 readers
967 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, I'd prefer that fewer rather than more different parties had nukes, because it's easier for fewer parties to agree not to use them. Would've been nice if the Soviets never got them, too, don't you agree?
Ahh. That's a real roundabout way of agreeing with what I said.
Thank you for your shame.
Anything to admit it's okay for Israel and the US to work together to exploit windows vulnerabilities, which is how this discussion began.
To be clear, I think it's a great idea for any humans who are capable of doing so to sabotage the ability of a country that doesn't currently have nuclear weapons to obtain them. The fewer different parties have nuclear weapons, the less likely it is that there will be more nuclear explosions on this planet.
It would have been better if Israel didn't have nuclear weapons.
It would have been better if the Soviet Union didn't have nuclear weapons.
I'll go way out on a limb here, and say everyone would be better off if literally no one had nukes. Call me crazy, but dying in a nuclear hellfire isn't exactly how I want to go.
Well, yes, but that's not really an option today. Non-proliferation is an option today: preventing the list of nuclear-armed powers from getting any longer.
Of course it's not. But a boy can dream