Acquiring nukes seems like the best way for any country to protect themselves against outside interference.

We know that as soon as Gaddafi decommissioned his nukes, Libya was targeted and invaded. If Iraq actually did have nukes, the USA wouldn’t have been so brazen to invade.

China, Russia, and North Korea’s acquisitions of nukes are also some of the main reasons why they are not easy targets for direct US invasion.

If Iran had nukes, it would drastically limit Israel’s ability to indiscriminately attack Iranian assets.

Western policies against nuclear proliferation always seem to target the countries that need them the most to ensure national sovereignty, and never refer to their own nukes.

For example, they always fearmonger about “rogue states” like North Korea getting nukes, while being perfectly okay with Israel’s own nukes. It might be best if these policies are ignored entirely.

  • queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I want you to imagine Cuba having its own nuclear program and nuclear arsenal. Would that change anything for the better for Cuba? I certainly don’t think it would change anything about Cuba’s current situation, but maybe it would hold off potential future US aggression.

    I’m not convinced, I think the US would become even more aggressive if there was a nuclear rival in the Western hemisphere.

    Now I want you to imagine the DPRK not having a nuclear program. Would they actually be vulnerable to Western aggression? They have the fourth largest military in the world, with or without nuclear weapons they could flatten Seoul. Do the nukes actually help? Maybe.

    Again, I’m not convinced. I don’t think nuclear weapons are as powerful a deterrent to be worth bothering with. I’m not even against enemies of the US/NATO suicide pact having nuclear weapons, I just question if they’re really the best use of resources or worth the consequences.

    • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      The DPRK having nuclear weapons is unarguably the reason they haven’t been attacked yet. That and China’s help, of course, but with how often U.S. politicians have suggested nuking the DPRK, I can’t not take them at their word.

      That’s a fair point and I didn’t mean to be too dickish. I think Cuba is the exception to the rule though.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Unarguably, huh? So the fact that the Korean People’s Army could flatten Seoul with ballistic missiles is unimportant? Or that they have the fourth largest army in the world and are ready and willing to fight back against invasion? Or that China is their closest ally?

        I’m sorry, I just don’t think nukes are the only reason they haven’t been attacked. I think the nukes are icing on the cake, not fundamental to resisting US imperialism. The US can’t even muster the political will to start a war with Iran, which they’ve also wanted to do for decades.

        And it’s not like nuclear weapons have kept the US from instigating trade war, proxy war, or using sanctions as siege war. They’re not that great.

        • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          I don’t think nuclear weapons are the only reason, just a primary one.

          The U.S. would sacrifice Seoul in a milisecond if it meant permanently destroying the DPRK.

          It’s still better to have nuclear weapons than not have them, in a majority of cases, if it makes sense and if you have the funds to get them.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I question if the funds would be better spent doing other civic works projects like nuclear power plants. I just don’t know if they’re as big of a deterrent as is claimed.

            Besides, if the US was willing to sacrifice Seoul then why didn’t they invade before the DPRK attained intercontinental capacity? If the US was willing to sacrifice its pawns so easily then surely they would have invaded before there was a risk of nuclear bombs hitting the US. I think it’s because the US would lose if it invaded, because the Korean People’s Army is the fourth largest in the world and properly trained and equipped. They’re the true deterrent, I’m just not convinced that nuclear weapons really matter that much. I think it’s overblown.

            • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I think that the DPRK’s military acts as a deterrent as well, probably more than anyone expects. And while I take the U.S. projections relating to military-related shit with a mountain of salt, I’m not sure the DPRK’s military could “win” against the U.S. military, given the significant funding, material and technological advantages.

              Though I am aware that the DPRK’s military wouldn’t be helpless, and the U.S. would suffer massive casualties.

              • queermunist she/her
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Win or lose, I still think it’s enough of a deterrent to keep the US from attacking, which is why the US didn’t invade to prevent the DPRK from achieving intercontinental capacity in the first place. It seems clear to me that nuclear weapons came long after such a war was untenable to the US. Until I see a serious downsizing of the Korean People’s Army I’m going to be unconvinced that nuclear weapons actually matter.