- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- canada@lemmy.ca
You must log in or register to comment.
Burnham and Macron are obligated to give Canada nukes.
I’d prefer EMPs
Yes, keep arming the world with doomsday weapons, great idea.
We signed a non-proliferation agreement for a reason.
Ukraine got invaded after giving up their nukes.
So why is it that only the great powers are allowed nukes?
Why must Canada or Cuba disarm before the United States?
Am I supposed to suddenly agree with nukes because of this?
People are so short-sighted as to knowing the level of carnage these things produce. “It protects us from invasion” is not a valid excuse. Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced levels of indiscriminate killing and torment that we have not seen before or since, and these weapons have only grown more powerful since then.
Having a handful of fault points in the world is better than a million. People keep making the case that it just takes one madman from either the U.S., Russia, or China to launch a nuke.
Can you imagine if we just started allowing everyone to have nukes because we struggled getting the big guys to stop? Do you want Franz Ferdinand’s assassination but with atomic weapons? That’s what you get when start allowing more people to have nukes, and “but our guy is rational” doesn’t cut it as a justification.
Edit: You know, it’s hilarious that I’ve been blocked from responding to the person below’s comment calling me a tankie when at no point did I voice support for China or Russia and literally indicated that it can take a madman from those countries to cause mayhem just as much as it could anywhere else.
I find it so funny that self-described progressives will often drop their stance on war crimes the second you decide that you don’t want your country having a device that may as well be called “Warcrime Commiter 9000”. Does Avi Lewis support Canada having nuclear weapons? No? So he’s a tankie then, right? It just goes to show how far the Overton window has shifted right, and how people are shifting with it.
I want to know when being Canadian started meaning being anti-humanity. The creators of these weapons were horrified at their capability, and we decide that we want to have more of these things in the world over this fallacy that more destructive capability means more safety.
Missing the point, why don’t you move into a superpower if you’re gonna weaken the smaller states.
Canada is never going to disarm ever with naive people like you in the world. I guess being a tankie is more important.
Unfortunately the previous plan, i.e. non-proliferation in the expectation that the USA will provide the deterrence, thus reducing the number of “fault points” as you call them, AKA the “Pax Americana” plan … has failed. Or at least, is in the process of failing, with no way to stop it while Trump is in office.
Cool. Except I don’t expect the U.S. to protect us.
I expect us to not follow their footsteps and become more alike to them by saying “if they have indiscriminate killing machines, we should have them too!”
Non-proliferation isn’t about protection from other countries with weapons. It’s about protection from the weapons themselves in disarmament and collectively deciding that their use is a war crime.
We’re literally basically just saying “if they can commit war crimes and not care, why can’t we?”. I don’t care about Trump when it comes to this, if anything he proves the point that having these weapons is a bad idea for everybody because it takes one bad apple to ruin the cider.
Non-proliferation isn’t about protection from other countries with weapons. It’s about protection from the weapons themselves in disarmament and collectively deciding that their use is a war crime.
Except the world is very evidently incapable of collectively deciding anything. Just because you think the world SHOULD work some particular kinda way, doesn’t mean it DOES. If you’re incapable of seeing the world for what it is and dealing with the reality you see, that doesn’t make you more moral than people who see a deeply flawed world and decide to make it, even if not perfect, at least better.
Abdicating responsibility for the concrete planning of how people who want peace should protect themselves from people who want war, is not the same as building peace.
I’m usually very anti weapons but I don’t mind us (Canada) developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. AFAIK we’re not missing much to get there.
And as for the treaties, our neighbours with which we have multiple agreements and treaties doesn’t respect them. They’re threatening of annexation. For the Unitedstaters, treaties are only ink on a page.
I’d prefer mutual destruction to becoming an American.
