That's a shame... Should've terminated the treaty entirely. It's not like there is any reason to believe north atlantic terrorist organization and it's masters in Fascington will ever be credible partners.

[–] Flavourful@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hopefully neither part will increase their nuclear arsenal. However I doubt that the US would even if Russia did.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You're probably somewhat right, they don't really have to expand the arsenal (as in number of warheads), they have enough. However, they will expand and modernise the delivery systems.

For example, USA did announced 2 years ago that they will pump much more money into their nuclear arsenal. Which could have something to do with the Russia decision announced today, especially considering rather weak history of US adhering to various relevant treaties. And afaik Russia suspended this one mainly because they don't want to have their arsenal inspected by "neutral" inspectors, also not very surprising move after IAEA clearly took UA side in the Zaporozhie plant and ignored UA shelling and attacks the plant.

Country that is planning to increase their nuclear arsenal for sure is China. They have been doing this already for few years, expanding it from around 200 to 400 warheads, and Pentagon suspects they will have up to 1500 warheads in 2035. Again, clearly as deterrent in case US thought they might maybe win a war against "mere" 200 or 400 warheads (number of ICBM unclear, in 2013 it was 50-75 of which some were obsolete).

Another country which is increasing its arsenal is DPRK, although we don't know much about it except that they have probably around 50 warheads and USA confirmed they do have ICBM's and some limited second-strike ability. Also they can't be even blamed since it is the only known working yankee repellant (anyone doubting should look at Libya).

UK, France and Israel would probably stay as they were

No idea about India and Pakistan

Also overall reminder that at the peak in 1985 there was around 64000 nuclear warheads in the world. Now there are around 12500. Both numbers are entirely sufficient to kill us all.

[–] Flavourful@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Exactly. And I think that they also wouldn't increase their arsenal to show that they don't want to aggrevate the situation back to the cold war. Maybe Russia will say that since the US is modernizing it's arsenal they will have to do the same?

IAEA taking a side, that's an interesting claim? Can't find any verified sources about Ukraine firing at their own nuclear power plant, can you provide one? Seems weird that they would risk such a huge catastrophe in their own country even though the russians in breach of the Geneva convention stationed forces there.

Probably. Interesting enough all of these except India, Pakistan and Israel (which claims to have no nukes lol) have signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons where one of the pillars is decreasing their nuclear arsenals.. One atomic bomb is one to much tbh. :/

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The attacks on nuclear plant were reported by the western media widely. Unless one is to believe Russians shelled themselves that leave only one option. UA didn't even hide it too much though.

Also right before the IAEA inspection arrived, UA commandos raid was repelled very close to the facility. The IAEA itself thanked Russia for safeguarding their team, which is pretty clear indication who they really feared will obstruct them (and of course UA did).

However, the final IAEA report (not linking this, easily enough to find) is lacking all the things they said before, and instead it's pushing up the western version to the point of complete implausibility.

Finally, there is this "fun" video of president Zelensky, where he openly calls for preventive nuclear strike on Russia. Fun guy.

[–] TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago

A Twitter link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on Nitter, which is a Twitter frontend that protects your privacy.

[–] Flavourful@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, and it was unclear who made them according to credible news sources. So it’s bold to say it’s Ukraine firing on their own staff, their own power plant and risking a nuclear accident in their own country? Can’t read russian and a Moscowbased newspaper is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Neither the iranian one… :P

Yes it seems like the ukranians was afraid that letting the IAEA in to inspect while Russia still controlled the power plant would somehow ‘cement’ their position there? Strange reasoning. Anyway, you claim that the IAEA sides with Ukraine even though they supposedly where hindered by them, glad to be protected against them and even pushed a statement reafirming Russias narrative about a ‘special military operation’. That’s an interesting train of thought.

Btw a quick web search can tell you that the subs in that video isn't true.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

So you just read multiple sources and decided everything you don't like is false. And you do believe Russians shelled themselves XD

[–] Flavourful@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No lol. But some of your reasoning is based on untrustworthy news outlets. As well as the video you uncritically linked tells me that maybe you’re not that picky with reliable sources. ^^

It is true that the Ukraine did hinder the IAEA from entering the occupied power plant, but that would argue that they wouldn’t side with the Ukraine. Your reasoning is contradictory and mostly based on unreliable news sources is all I’m saying.

Who knows. Or maybe they shelled those ukranian commandos you wrote about. The russians haven’t really been that careful about their troops in a nuclear environment.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No lol. But some of your reasoning is based on untrustworthy news outlets.

Not toeing US State Department nor belonging to the western media oligopoly does not automatically means outlet is "untrustworthy".

but that would argue that they wouldn’t side with the Ukraine. Your reasoning is contradictory

It isn't contradictory because IAEA is not independent agency, it depends on UN and UN is mostly western controlled and it's very often used instrumentally to directly or indirectly support or whitewash western imperialism (i mean just remember Korea, Yugoslavia, Rwanda etc.), that's why the final report is inconsistent with previous statements.

Or maybe they shelled those ukranian commandos you wrote about.

If you even read those articles i linked you would know there were multiple shellings and the raid was stopped 3 km from the facility.

The russians haven’t really been that careful about their troops in a nuclear environment.

And you know this from where?

[–] Flavourful@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh my, I'm not going to continue this. I was curious about your claim of IAEA sideing with Ukraine and I got an answer for that, thank you.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

we have a lost redditor here

load more comments