Applies to Lemmy too.

  • PugJesus@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    If the US really cared about nuclear proliferation, it would start by reducing its own nuclear arsenal. It would pressure Israel to denuclearize. It would deescalate with China so they’d have less incentive to increase their nuclear stockpile.

    The point of preventing nuclear proliferation is, by definition, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states precisely because of how difficult it is to convince a country to denuclearize.

    • humanamerican@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      So a country going from 50 nukes to 100 isn’t proliferation?

      Putting key words in bold in your comment doesn’t prove your point.

      Anyway, recent history tells anyone who’s paying attention that if the US has you on their shit list, te last thing you should do is give up your weapons programs. Contrast Iraq and Libya with North Korea, for instance.

      The US is not a force for peace or progress, regardless of who is in charge here. Dems are better than Reps at masking our Imperial ambitions, but either way we make things worse. We should stop meddling in foreign affairs and fix our problems at home.

      • PugJesus@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        So a country going from 50 nukes to 100 isn’t proliferation?

        Literally, it is not.

        Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries, particularly those not recognized as nuclear-weapon states by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. Nuclear proliferation occurs through the spread of fissile material, and the technology and capabilities needed to produce it and to design and manufacture nuclear weapons. In a modern context, it also includes the spread of nuclear weapons to non-state actors. Proliferation has been opposed by many nations with and without nuclear weapons, as governments fear that more countries with nuclear weapons will increase the possibility of nuclear warfare (including the so-called countervalue targeting of civilians), de-stabilize international relations, or infringe upon the principle of state sovereignty.

        Putting key words in bold in your comment doesn’t prove your point.

        Apparently it didn’t emphasis them enough, considering you still failed to understand.

        Anyway, recent history tells anyone who’s paying attention that if the US has you on their shit list, te last thing you should do is give up your weapons programs. Contrast Iraq and Libya with North Korea, for instance.

        Yes, I’m sure that if Iraq had only kept producing chemical weapons the 2003 invasion would never have happened, and if only Gadaffi had kept his 40-year-failure going another ten years, then his people definitely wouldn’t have rose up against him, and there would be no way that any country could use air power against im!

        That you think North Korea is a positive example in this situation is fucking telling.