Look, it's one thing for Ukraine to have had Soviet-era nuclear missiles they could have used as a deterrent against Russian aggression.

A lot of PPs are raising the suggestion that having nuclear weapons is a good thing because it acts as a deterrent. By extension, they're suggesting maybe nuclear weapons are a viable source of protection when a nation finds itself threatened with invasion.

It's not, for a very simple reason.

Remember when we were worried about Trump irresponsibly and in a drunken state pushing the button? Well, our country still runs well enough that effective checks and balances prevent this from happening. But this is not the case for a lot of countries with weak governments.

Imagine Afghanistan having a nuclear weapon. The same government that capitulated within days of the U.S. pulling out. The same government that turned over all the U.S. sourced weapons to extremist Islamic groups. Extremists who think you automatically go to paradise when you die in battle.

This is the reason nuclear weapons are an extremely dangerous form of deterrence. No, we should not arm Ukraine or any other nation with nuclear weapons. It's bad enough that they exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should absolutely be giving Ukraine some of our nuclear bombs. That’s the whole point of nuclear deterrence. And if they and Russia decide to nuke each other, it’s on them. We stay out of it.

Many of us believe the goal should be nuclear disarmament, not nuclear deterrence. We really need to start working from a higher level of evolution.

Think the Ukrainians believe that? Next time Putin starts making noise…leak to the press the US is evaluating arming the Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should absolutely be giving Ukraine some of our nuclear bombs. That’s the whole point of nuclear deterrence. And if they and Russia decide to nuke each other, it’s on them. We stay out of it.

Many of us believe the goal should be nuclear disarmament, not nuclear deterrence. We really need to start working from a higher level of evolution.

Ok trumpie

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/12/biden-trump-nuclear-weapons-526976?_amp=true

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should absolutely be giving Ukraine some of our nuclear bombs. That’s the whole point of nuclear deterrence. And if they and Russia decide to nuke each other, it’s on them. We stay out of it.

Many of us believe the goal should be nuclear disarmament, not nuclear deterrence. We really need to start working from a higher level of evolution.

Ok trumpie

Anonymous wrote:No.

Never has any country given another one of their nuclear weapons. Some have gone so far as to lend nuclear engineers to friendly countries... but never an actual weapon. You don't give another country the magic bullet to shoot you dead, OP.

You know nothing about the subject. Ever heard of Polaris? Trident?

Anonymous wrote:We should absolutely be giving Ukraine some of our nuclear bombs. That’s the whole point of nuclear deterrence. And if they and Russia decide to nuke each other, it’s on them. We stay out of it.

Many of us believe the goal should be nuclear disarmament, not nuclear deterrence. We really need to start working from a higher level of evolution.

We should absolutely be giving Ukraine some of our nuclear bombs. That’s the whole point of nuclear deterrence. And if they and Russia decide to nuke each other, it’s on them. We stay out of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I'll pass on nuclear WW3 thanks.

Spoke like a true Russian troll.

Or like an American with an opinion that differs from your own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.

Never has any country given another one of their nuclear weapons. Some have gone so far as to lend nuclear engineers to friendly countries... but never an actual weapon. You don't give another country the magic bullet to shoot you dead, OP.

In reality the US supplied the UK with nuclear weapons. The UK initiated a nuclear weapons programme, codenamed Tube Alloys, during the Second World War. At the Quebec Conference in August 1943, it was merged with the American Manhattan Project. In the 1950’s US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed and the US armed the UK with nuclear weapons.

Also NATO member(Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey) and the US share nuclear weapons. France and Israel shared research in the 1950-60 with the US providing technology aid to France in the 1970’s. It is fairly easy to build a one off bomb but making it a practical weapon is a lot harder. Both France and Israel would not have been able to make a practical weapon with a delivered system without the US.

Also the Soviets stole US nuclear technology. Basically the US either supplied nuclear weapons or gave the technology to make nuclear weapons to UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey and Soviet(not willingly).

Which the US obtained from German scientists.

No. The US did not obtain it from the German. The German nuclear program was way behind the US at ever stage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.

Never has any country given another one of their nuclear weapons. Some have gone so far as to lend nuclear engineers to friendly countries... but never an actual weapon. You don't give another country the magic bullet to shoot you dead, OP.

In reality the US supplied the UK with nuclear weapons. The UK initiated a nuclear weapons programme, codenamed Tube Alloys, during the Second World War. At the Quebec Conference in August 1943, it was merged with the American Manhattan Project. In the 1950’s US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed and the US armed the UK with nuclear weapons.

Also NATO member(Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey) and the US share nuclear weapons. France and Israel shared research in the 1950-60 with the US providing technology aid to France in the 1970’s. It is fairly easy to build a one off bomb but making it a practical weapon is a lot harder. Both France and Israel would not have been able to make a practical weapon with a delivered system without the US.

Also the Soviets stole US nuclear technology. Basically the US either supplied nuclear weapons or gave the technology to make nuclear weapons to UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey and Soviet(not willingly).

Which the US obtained from German scientists.

The Russian troll brigades supporting the republican party have really been silent of late.

I'm ready to support nuking Russia just to take out the trolls that have brought to the US to the point we are now.

Anonymous wrote:No, I'll pass on nuclear WW3 thanks.

Spoke like a true Russian troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Actually based on history a nuclear armed Ukraine would be less unlike to be invaded and therefore start WW3. If China had had nuclear weapons Japan would not have invade in the 1930’s starting WW2.


True. Most Americans do not know Japan invaded China at all.

Yes, well if the US had had nuclear weapons in the 1930's, maybe the Japanese would not have attacked us either (Pearl Harbor if you recall). So what's the point of surmising this? We are not in 1941 either.

What do you mean what’s the point? Nuclear armed states are much much less likely to be attacked and over run. Also the US was running a proxy war against Japan in China and imposed crippling sanctions on Japan. Some would say there are similarities to current situation- ie nato forced Russia to attack Ukraine/US forced Japan to attack the US. I say that is BS. Japan and Russia have shown who they are. Both are/were expansionist who will kill and exterminate others for territorial gains unless the cost is too high.

Anonymous wrote:


Actually based on history a nuclear armed Ukraine would be less unlike to be invaded and therefore start WW3. If China had had nuclear weapons Japan would not have invade in the 1930’s starting WW2.


True. Most Americans do not know Japan invaded China at all.

Yes, well if the US had had nuclear weapons in the 1930's, maybe the Japanese would not have attacked us either (Pearl Harbor if you recall). So what's the point of surmising this? We are not in 1941 either.