- cross-posted to:
- Europe@europe.pub
- cross-posted to:
- Europe@europe.pub
Germany is at a crossroads when it comes to its security policy — one of the deepest upheavals of the post-War era.
Germany is at a crossroads when it comes to its security policy — one of the deepest upheavals of the post-War era.
Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it’s scary
Non proliferation was possible because of nuclear security guarantees by the US. Those are now worthless.
Pandora’s box is open. Thanks Putin. Thanks Trump. EU can’t do nothing… We’re heading to more war and disorder either way. Not only more new nukes, also higher chances of them being used again which is even more scary.
No need to break it. The treaty can be left within 90 days after giving a notice with a reason. Given that building nuclear weapons takes some time, that seems very possible.
I’ve read estimates that, given the technology needed for production, a country like Japan could develop a functioning nuclear device within a month.
Pretty much any country that runs a sizable domestic nuclear programme can do that. The technology is well known enough to make all sorts of nuclear devices with relative ease. A gun type (Hiroshima style) nuclear weapon is very low tech. With enough disregard for (workplace) health and safety, a backyard foundry/machine shop could cobble one together, given they have enough (and pure enough) 235U. The biggest obstacle is procuring suitable fissile material in sufficient quantities.
Non-Proliferation is based on the promise of nuclear powers to defend those who don’t have nukes. Since this promise is out of the window thanks to Trump, proliferation is the logical consequence.
*George W Bush (and Israel in general).
Not really, the goal was disarmament and exchange of peaceful nuclear technology
Most of the people who saw the results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are dead. The people who grew up hiding under their school desks waiting for the bomb to drop are old.
The memory of the fear is fading.
I think the fear is very much alive.
If the alternatives are fearing the negative impact potentially imposed vs being imposed upon, most people choose their own safety and security though. Whether that’s factual or hypothetical - it’s more than not having such a deterrent while the potential aggressor has them.
People are like: let’s move a bit closer to the end of the world, seems like a fun event.