57
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] fubo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, I'd prefer that fewer rather than more different parties had nukes, because it's easier for fewer parties to agree not to use them. Would've been nice if the Soviets never got them, too, don't you agree?

[-] dudebro@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Ahh. That's a real roundabout way of agreeing with what I said.

Thank you for your shame.

Anything to admit it's okay for Israel and the US to work together to exploit windows vulnerabilities, which is how this discussion began.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To be clear, I think it's a great idea for any humans who are capable of doing so to sabotage the ability of a country that doesn't currently have nuclear weapons to obtain them. The fewer different parties have nuclear weapons, the less likely it is that there will be more nuclear explosions on this planet.

It would have been better if Israel didn't have nuclear weapons.

It would have been better if the Soviet Union didn't have nuclear weapons.

[-] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

I'll go way out on a limb here, and say everyone would be better off if literally no one had nukes. Call me crazy, but dying in a nuclear hellfire isn't exactly how I want to go.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Well, yes, but that's not really an option today. Non-proliferation is an option today: preventing the list of nuclear-armed powers from getting any longer.

[-] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Of course it's not. But a boy can dream

this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
57 points (92.5% liked)

World News

32326 readers
443 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS