Remix.run Logo
optimalsolver 6 hours ago

My previous comment:

The most salient lesson of the post-Cold War era: Get nukes or die trying.

A nation's relationship to other states, up to and especially including superpowers, is completely different once it's in the nuclear club. Pakistan can host bin Laden for years and still enjoy US military funding. North Korea can literally fire missiles over South Korea and Japan and get a strongly-worded letter of condemnation, along with a generous increase in foreign aid. We can know, for a fact, that the 2003 Iraq War coalition didn't actually believe their own WMD propaganda. If they thought that Saddam could vaporize the invasion force in a final act of defiance, he'd still be in power today. Putin knows perfectly well that NATO isn't going to invade Russia, so he can strip every last soldier from the Baltic borders and throw them into the Ukrainian meat grinder.

Aside from deterring attack, it also discourages powerful outside actors from fomenting revolutions. The worry becomes who gets the nukes if the central government falls.

Iran's assumption seems to have been that by permanently remaining n steps away from having nukes (n varying according to the current political and diplomatic climate), you get all the benefits of being a nuclear-armed state without the blowback of going straight for them. But no, you need to have the actual weapons in your arsenal, ready to use at a moment's notice.

My advice for rulers, especially ones on the outs with major geopolitical powers: Pour one out for Gaddafi, then hire a few hundred Chinese scientists and engineers and get nuked up ASAP.

8note 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

opportunity cost-wise, iran could have poured all the money they did in nuclear enrichment instead into missiles, air defense, etc, and they would not be having as much problems as they do now.

nuclear enrichment is extraordinarily expensive and really not all that great of a deterrent when you have them. just look at fairly recent tussels between india, pakistan and china. Russia was invaded and didnt nuke ukraine.

nielsbot 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I thought Ukraine surrendered her nukes?

postsantum 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

Ukraine never had nukes. It's like saying Alabama had to give up their nukes after gaining independence

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
peyton 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> My advice for rulers … hire a few hundred Chinese scientists and engineers and get nuked up ASAP.

Just need one flight from Pyongyang. Why suggest involving a major power given that you’ve just laid out the strategic need for nuclear weapons to deter interference from… major powers? Your post lacks coherency.

HappyPanacea 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If nukes are so good why Israel isn't safe? Or in other words you overestimate how useful nukes are. On contrary for Iran them having nukes mean Israel have to guess if coming missiles contain nukes or not and whatever to strike back with their own nukes where as now they can freely sand missiles without escalation concerns.

padjo 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Israel isn't safe? They are probably the most well defended country on the earth. A very capable domestic military and the full power of the US as an attack dog willing to do their bidding.

lucketone 5 hours ago | parent [-]

They have good defence, but:

- it costs money and attention

- good is not the same as perfect (there are some casualties from time to time)

necovek 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nukes do not help against guerilla warfare: their destructive power is so big that they are really unreasonable attack weapon, and only a deterring factor instead.

They protect against being "policed" by big world countries.

Eg. if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, Russia would not have been invading them (or are they "protecting" them, as promised when they took their nuclear arsenal for destruction?). If Iran or Iraq had nuclear weapons, they would not have been bombed by US.

CapricornNoble 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>If nukes are so good why Israel isn't safe?

Israeli nukes are the main reason we haven't had regime change in Tel Aviv at the hands of a Turkish/Egyptian/Saudi/Iranian coalition. Israeli nukes are why Iran has had to settle into a pattern of slow, distant, annoyance via proxy forces (which lack a capability for existentially challenging the IDF).

Ekaros 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Anti-nuclear proliferation should now be treated as crime against humanity. Nuclear proliferation is only way to ensure world peace. Every single country should get nukes and capability to use them against each others. And be fully ready to do it.

wolfd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I hope you and I never get the opportunity to learn how this would end. We’ve had nukes on Earth for less than 100 years, do you expect the next few thousand to go that well? Do you think in that time, nobody will ever roll a nat 1 on a wisdom check?

Moldoteck 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let's bring this idea to an ultimate level- each country to have a warhead able to wipe everything, sort of project Sundial...

After all if your country is too small, it may be worthless to have nukes that probably would be destroyed by neighbors on launch...

Ekaros 5 hours ago | parent [-]

That would work. Reasonable power balance would be reached. And negotiations could happen from equal perspective.

lucketone 4 hours ago | parent [-]

One step further: every man, woman and child should have a launch button.

(My bet would be: max one day)

bombcar 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://www.angryflower.com/422.html

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
phoronixrly 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Can't tell if sarcasm