Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Even if they have the ability to build one, and do so without Russia turning the facility where they're building it into rubble with hypersonic missiles, they would need dozens to have full MAD type protection.
Does Ukraine even have a missile system capable of carrying that kind of payload as far as Moscow?
Maybe not anymore, but they had a few orbital rockets:
They definitely had the talent to do so, but realistically they couldn't build one today :(
I know nothing about the subject but doesn't it require a massive infrastructure investment and time that Ukraine can't afford right now? I mean even Zaporizhzhia is controlled by the invaders, though I'm not sure if it's there where they would produce fissile materials. Furthermore, Ukraine's remaining allies are staunch anti-nuclear proliferation.
Who's going to supply them with uranium and parts? The French? lol
Every country should have the freedom to build their own nukes while we are at it.
The only country who dared used their bombs, and twice, is the US, and did it while there was no need for it. so I don't see how some countries are taking the moral high ground about who should and shouldn't have nukes, it is mostly about about who should and should impose their imperialism with the help of nukes.
dumb ideas that could end the world.
Imagine if your neighbor 20 miles away decided they were going to build the world's largest nuclear warhead.
They're doing it in their home. It doesn't impact you, right?
No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.
Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn't even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??
The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It's just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?
That video taught me that Project Sundial should have gone ahead.
I don't think they have much of a choice at this point. And yes, I'd support it. They clearly should've never agreed to the Budapest Memorandum with its half hearted security guarantees.
I though he quit comedy
Only Usamericans can think that nuclear weapons are a serious option to use.
Depends what you mean by "use".
The Americans are the only ones to have used them in terms of destroying enemy assets (and sadly in that case it was used against civilians). But as a deterrent it's been used by a LOT of countries all around the world and is still being used for that purpose right now.
An argument could be made the Cold War could have been an all out world war if it weren't for nukes, with the short peace after WW2 be considered just a break and not the end.
I hope nukes won't be used, but Ukraine is in trouble and if they are backed into a corner and facing destruction who knows what they will do. Same could apply to Iran before long, if they have the ability to get nukes somehow, it might be their only hope. Just please let it be as a deterrent and not actual nuclear war.
He's giving better nukes to NK in exchange for support, and there's Intel he's giving some to Iran as well.
He won't stop until he is stopped, we should have learned that by now.
I was talking about the act of using it.
You must learn to distinguish between a threat and an act.
Then let's threaten to nuke moscow tomorrow if he doesn't immediately withdraw.
We'll make it a really intense threat too, take all our missiles to defcon 1, deploy all our forces, have squadrons of f-22s and f-35s surrounding Ukraine and obviously tail all their borei.
"It's just a threat, bro!"
Well, yes, every chess player and every really powerful man knows that the threat is stronger than the act.
Unfortunately, yours cannot be taken seriously.
Because?
This is the whole russian ethos, you must give them everything they want, because they don't care.
It's like the idiot who threatens to eat his own shit, and then does it.
We get that they have less respect for themselves and peace, but we learned a long time ago that giving in to those people doesn't win peace, only more war, because you're rewarding their behavior.
It is an absolutely credible threat that we could wipe out the entire Russian armed forces with a fraction of our power, and they know that.
You honestly think they pushed so hard to get Trump in power for no reason? We are the only thing holding them back.
MAD doctrine. And it works it seems.
There's really no question that any nation that wants actual security should have a nuclear weapon. It's one of the only things that keeps you safe. This has been proven time and time again. Treaties are all just paper that can be ripped up at a moment's notice and disregarded as is needed. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that actually protects sovereignty.
It will surely help significantly preventing a tactical nuclear strike from russia, though it won't end the war. It is an absolute last resort trigger. Ukraine will be annihilated after they use it (Russia has way more nuklear weapons).
So somewhat good for them and OK to do so, though no solution and no substitution for western military aid.
Yep.
The US won’t be there for them anymore once trump takes the reins.
Ukraine, and potentially anyone in NATO as well, will have to fend for themselves.
