• GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Hell, I’m kind of leaning towards Sweden needing a nuclear program at this point.

    • gadfly1999@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      There is a nation that formerly had nukes and gave them up in exchange for security assurances from the United States which hasn’t been honored.

  • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    If these countries don’t wake the fuck up, stop being run by pacifist pussies, and build a solid fucking deterrence using MAD policies, they will never be safe.

    • jrs100000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      They still wont be safe. This sets in motion a chain of events that probably ends in WWIII, which is something they have known all along. They are also probably too late. The time to start building a solid military to defend you today was about two decades ago.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Yes, that’s the trick with nuclear, right? It’s a jenga tower where it’s desirable to pull out your piece of non-proliferation, but if everyone does we’re in trouble. Maybe it’s better to be a sacrificial lamb to keep the tower standing, or maybe it’s not.

        Hiding behind France is a more attractive option for my country, at least. If they need fissile materials we can hook them up with the same stuff that has been going to 'Murica. They can have our other cool rocks, too; it’s only fair.