• fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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.