• Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Iran needs nukes to defend itself from a nuclear armed aggressor. Everyone needs nukes for that reason. Greenland needs nukes to protect itself from the US.

    • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Greenland is part of Denmark, which is part of NATO and the EU. That means they technically have UK’s, France’s, and the US’s nukes.

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Probability of nuclear war rises with number of states having nukes. It’s best to keep that number as low as possible, so I would not think it wise for Greenland to have nukes. It would not be a sin for Iran to have them, though, given Iran’s allies aren’t exactly offering a nuclear umbrella.

      • Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        That is the conventional wisdom. Wisdom written by people with nukes who can’t stop bullying everyone else.

        • jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          the conventional wisdom checks out to me. Sometimes bullies happen to be right.

      • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        best to keep the number low

        Yeah it would be cool if Ukraine was a positive example of what happens when you surrender your nuclear weapons.

        How about we all just agree to glass any religious fanatics, especially ethnostates, that get their hands on the things?

    • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      with extinction technology, i don’t know what the answer is. i think you either need a high level of trust and cooperation between all wielding parties which never goes away, or you need a singular world government which has no reason to arm itself with such a thing.

      the stalemate situation where all enemies have a gun to point at one another so that nobody fires a shot is crazy. that can’t be the solution.