this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
335 points (92.0% liked)

World News

34956 readers
466 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What's America's view on this Tucker Carlson?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Mutually assured destruction is pretty much why no one will ever actually go through with that if their target also has nukes or is protected by a country that has them. It's one of the major reasons no country that has nukes wants to disarm.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ask Libya and Ukraine how that worked out

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Sorry... do you think Libya with nuclear weapons under Gaddafi would have been a good idea?

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I was thinking of South Africa and I was wrong.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

No worries. Libya did give up its nuclear program as well, but it was because all the countries that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 said, "do it or you're next."

[–] 52fighters@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Gaddafi would still be alive. Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival. Look for the world to get real crazy real fast.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There are 57 dictatorships in the world. Almost none of them have nuclear weapons.

https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/

[–] 52fighters@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You realize Muammar Gaddafi only died 12 years ago and Russia only invaded Ukraine two years ago? Nuclear weapon programs take at least that long to develop. Ukraine and Libya had programs (Ukraine actually had weapons) and abandoned them, much to their demise. If they kept their programs, they wouldn't have had these problems.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Okay, but that's not what you said before. You claimed, and as I pasted: "Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival."

Please explain how the vast majority of dictatorships are surviving without them. Or do all 57 have nuclear weapons?