Should it be illegal to keep nukes outside your country?

[Anonymous]

[madhatters4]

should be but the reality is countries wouldn't follow the rule

nukes should be illegal period. there is ZERO reason for them

[Asker]

There is more dangerous weapons than nukes. Now they are only an act. Really USA and Russia have far worse things.

[madhatters4]

i understand there are worse things. but nukes still shouldn't be something nations have. weapons of indiscreet destruction shouldn't be used so they shouldn't be possessed.

[monorprise]

@madhatters4 Nukes are quite a handy way to most of the time convince sane leaders the cost of fighting a war against such equip states is not worth it.

Unfortunately we do every now and then end up with senile and insane leaders like Joe Biden.

But i suppose on average we are still better off otherwise we would have had as many as 4 other global wars since World war 2.
The sum of their losses from just conventional weapons are likely far in excess of what we will lose from a modern nuclear exchange.

[madhatters4]

@monorprise the reality is we've had world wars since WW2. we just don't call them that. but korea, vietnam, desert storm, second war in iraq, afhganistan all involved multiple nations not much different than ww1 or 2. only difference was the battlefield was smaller. but the wars themselves certainly had implications on the world

[monorprise]

@madhatters4 If you want to call them global wars fine, but the meaning is without nukes the full industry and population of the biggest and most powerfully nations of the world would be mobilized against each-other again and again. Waging war on an ever larger and more destructive scale.

Even in World War 2 without nuclear weapons we already leveled countless cities killing as many as 85 million people. A 3rd world war waged with even modernly improved non-nuclear weapons would be capable of incrementally killing even larger numbers of people.

Politicians tho out history always get into wars thinking they can be ended quickly and easy, Always believing they will never let it go too far. And yet it almost always does go too far and kill far too many people as they can't stop themselfs at that point when everything is at stake.

[madhatters4]

@monorprise i truly appreciate your POV. i agree with it to some extent. but i tend to disagree that nukes have prevented world wars or any wars at that rate. i'd look at the number of wars since the nuke was dropped compared to the near 100 years prior

[monorprise]

@madhatters4

How does the number of wars change things?

We only have more distinct smaller conflicts because they remain contained for fear of escalation with too many new sides.

What we call World war 2 was a global war because all the parties at war nominally took sides as tends to happen in wars when looking for help. But it started out as several small wars, Japan's war against china, Germany's war against Poland (With Russia on their side).

The war like a fire simply expanded as more and more parties became involved to an ever larger extent.

For example Japan attacks the USA primarily because of our involvement to help China threatening their energy and war material supply. Likewise Germany did the same because we helped the United Kingdom, who likewise became involved because of Poland.

In the modern world Germany and the UK would have been reluctant to go to war with each-other for fear of what would very soon thereafter happen to both. Their leaders would know neither of them could achieve the easy and quick victory without destroy their countries.

Japan would likewise never have attacked these united States if they felt we could push a button to wipe them off the map.
As such their war against china would have remained one of those smaller wars. And there would have been many other smaller wars and limited only to countries they felt they could so take. Without nukes and without being in strong alliances with countries that have nukes.

That limits wars to being much more 1 sided and against small counties that simply don't have such huge populations and industries to lose.

So the real measure is how much is destroyed and how many are killed in the war.

[madhatters4]

@monorprise you said that nukes were a deterrent to world wars. i gave you about a half a dozen examples of wars involving multiple nations (world wars) that took place after nukes were spread across the globe. so i wonder how good of a deterrent they've been. right now two world powers are directly or indirectly involved in a war (involving a number of nations). both have nukes. those nukes don't seem to be deterring anything

[monorprise]

@madhatters4
In every single case your talking about a war against a smaller non-nuclear nations with no firm allies with nuclear nations willing to use such nukes to defend them.
That is where modern wars are limited to.

We may count more of them in part because they don't expand normally. On net they are all smaller conflicts precisely because the field of battle is limited to not include the worlds largest powers.

[madhatters4]

@monorprise OK. i disagree. in every single war except Iraq both sides were either nuclear powers (USA and Russa) or allied with nuclear powers (n. korea, vietnam, afghanistan, Ukraine). so i just don't see it. but we disagree

[monorprise]

@madhatters4
The allied relationships IO was speaking is the ones where we are "willing to use such nuclear weapons to defend" Such as the US and Japan or NATO. In no such case was a war fought where both sides were willing to go that far.

[Malwi93]

They would be selling IT on a black market

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Very debateble.

I will say, "no".

Because as dangerous is sound (Russia bombs in Belarus), i will more safe to know USA bombs are in Poland as well.

So is a 50%-50%

The better way i will say to not be any more nuks at all in the world, they are beyound human power to control them, to destructive and moust of the time unnecesary in this modern time.

We are not anymore in the Cold War and faceing a strong USSR that can actualy face West Europe.

[purplepoppy]

It would make nuclear submarines a bit awkward to own.

[Asker]

I meant weapons. USA holding them in Europe and Russia holding them in Belarus.

[Agape93]

Nope. Wouldn't be adhered to even if it was illegal.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Problem is, the countries doing it would never agree, and otherwise who is going to enforce it?

[Anonymous]

Yes, the United States is the global terrorist that threatens all the countries of the world.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

You have no brain. Tell me one sigle fucking country that USSR invade/ocupaid/anex and is today develop. I'm waithing

[BarryLiverstone]

I keep my nukes in the medicine cabinet in my bathroom. Is this safe?

[NamerOfStars]

Ask the Cubans!

[Drewtate]

Under what law?

[gorydetails]

how could it be illegal?

[Asker]

international treaties make things illegal.

[jahaims]

Lmfao who is going to enforce that