Two men standing in a pool of gasoline. One man has 20 matches while the other has none.
The man with no matches wonders if it’s a better idea if he should have a match too.
Obviously he should. Having a match, which is a genuine threat to the other man’s life, is the only thing that will give him a seat at the table.
Two disparate puddles of gasoline.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki did not render the country or world inhabitable.
Those were like firecrackers compared to what we have today. And to be clear, it was absolutely grotesque and caused cancer for generations.
It would be a good idea for the guy with no matches to get matches. If the guy with all the matches is much stronger than the guy without matches, the guy without matches would benefit from the threat of being able to take the other guy down with him.
That’s MAD
Before, I definitely would have said no. Working toward a nuke free world was going to get humans past the Great Filter. After understanding how susceptible humans are to propaganda, seeing how much more our technology is growing than our collective humanity, witnessing a small group of rich people use entire populations like they are nonsentient resources, and watching the USA power walk towards facisim… we are not going to make it past the Great Filter. Unfortunately it is starting to become more viable that longest lasting peace our species could hope to achieve comes from the fear of mutually assured destruction. All in all, I am no longer against the thought of it at all, especially after seeing how that worked out for Ukraine.
Working toward a nuke free world was going to get humans past the Great Filter
Ironically, I’m increasingly of the opinion that the Great Filter will turn out to be Ignorance; more specifically, greed, stupidity and humankind’s more selfish nature delaying positive change long enough for climate change to wipe us out.
And for the few that remain, history gets lost.
The notions of it being the same cycle again and again seem not too far fetched, now.
Not with that attitude.
They need to have a nuclear deterrent by…
Last year.
If Ukraine did then it wouldn’t be in the fight for its life
Personally, I feel like this is quite a level of escalation that I think is a bit too far for Canada. Nuclear proliferation is just incredibly risky, especially when it comes to normalizing the idea of more countries having nukes. If Canada gets nukes, then who are we to say that another country shouldn’t also get nukes? What if that country is Iran, or Turkey, or some other country that has a notably loose concept of restraint while being next doors to a hostile country?
On the other hand, nuclear weapons is a form of protection that negates balance of conventional forces, and few imbalances are as great as that of Canada and the US.
For me, I think that we shouldn’t get nukes, but a better idea is to help an existing nuclear power to reinforce their stockpile and come under their umbrella, like the UK or France. Canada is already one of the top uranium exporters and a major nuclear energy power, so there’s little reason why we can’t be a contributor to the building and maintenance of a friendly nation’s nuclear stockpile in exchange for their protection.
Not to mention that it’ll cut back the risk of proliferation.
Removed by mod
