oh no worries guys, thats plenty to destroy the planet.
this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
42 points (87.5% liked)
News
37840 readers
1432 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The problem that’s arising now is that all of the major nuclear powers (UK and France aren’t really “major”) are now run by authoritarian regimes. The obvious implication is that there’s a sharply increased risk that they’ll decide to start using nukes to get what they want, and that they’ll all be more or less on the same side.
The rest of the world DOES need to seriously start exploring nuclear arms programs. The complete and total abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum (flagrantly by Russia via invasion; passively by the US and UK for not doing much of anything in response to Russia invading in 2014, and not providing more direct and overt support in 2022) has laid bare that the security agreements therein were worth less than the paper it was signed on.
Our failure to do ANYTHING meaningful to defend Ukraine when they gave up thousands of Soviet nukes in the wake of the fall of the USSR has made it painfully clear that nuclear proliferation is coming back in a big way, by simple virtue of the fact that they are clearly the final word in terms of guaranteeing a country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Russia would absolutely not have invaded Ukraine if one of the possible consequences was “Moscow and St Petersburg get turned to glass”.
I can agree that a nuclear arsenal is (or rather, should be) a good deterrent against international aggression, but why does everyone need so many?! I wonder if it has to do with processing i.e. one 'process' produces tens or hundreds of warheads worth of material..
Reliability and defense systems, lets say you need 100 warheads for credible deterrence.
Your missiles have a success rate of 80% so no you need 120. The enemy defenses shoot down 50% so now you need 240.
So to guarantee the 100 warhead deterrence you already need 240 warheads, and this number only increases further.
I mean, nominally, they don’t; it’s a legacy of the Cold War. But instead of drawing things down after the USSR fell, Russia held on to thousands and thousands of them, and the US felt it would be irresponsible to allow such a clear imbalance of power with a recent foe… that turned into a current foe. And China, being a neighbor of Russia, and also now a pretty clear adversary of the US, wasn’t about to let themselves get outpaced by strategic rivals either.
There was an opportunity in the 90s to just calm things down a ton, but that came and went.
TL;DR: a sound modern nuclear policy for a reasonably wealthy country is to have a reasonable enough number of weapons deployable via at least two vectors (one as sub-launched, if possible) to serve as a credible and ironclad second-strike force. That is the backstop that’ll keep your borders and sovereignty safe in the long run.
Think of the accidents that could happen. If we could only somehow use an international agency to get countries to get rid of nukes...
The French nuclear doctrine limits the use of nukes to only if France came under attack.
I thought Macron had now extended the French nuclear umbrella over all of Europe.
He proposed doing it. He has an habit of proposing many things though.
I think it was Peter Zeihan who speculated that one of the reasons Putin hasn’t resorted to using nukes is because he knows that we know exactly where he is at all times - and that any retaliatory strike would target him personally. It wouldn’t even necessarily have to be a nuclear strike. In that sense, even a single nuke would be enough - as a deterrent, if you even need that one.