this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
55 points (88.7% liked)

News

29268 readers
3399 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Within hours of a public showdown at the White House between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, in February, a Ukrainian banker started a fundraising campaign to buy nuclear weapons. Despite the privations inflicted by the war, Ukrainians donated as much as they could and gathered more than half a million dollars before he declared it was meant in jest and redirected the fund toward the purchase of drones.

Washington has more than a hundred B61 gravity bombs deployed across the continent in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. The total U.S. inventory is above 5,000, roughly matching Russia’s arsenal. In comparison, France and Britain, Europe’s only nuclear-armed states, possess a little more than 500 nuclear warheads combined.

Moreover, there are doctrinal challenges. The French nuclear doctrine limits the use of nukes to only if France came under attack. In comparison, Britain has declared that its deterrent extends to European allies, but the British nuclear deterrent itself is dependent on the United States for Trident missiles aboard four Vanguard-class submarines, since the missiles are leased from Lockheed Martin.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

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”.

[–] brendansimms@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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..

[–] TheMightyCat@lemm.ee 10 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 4 days ago

Think of the accidents that could happen. If we could only somehow use an international agency to get countries to get rid of nukes...