Current Events > Should the U.S. continue deproliferation, regardless of Russia/China/NK?

(+) Yeah! (+)

n/t
---

You don't wanna be the first guy on the block without them.
---

mustachedmystic posted...

You don't wanna be the first guy on the block without them.

I agree but I feels like there are a lot of pacifists here that think disarming is the best route.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I feels like there are a lot of pacifists here that think disarming is the best route

too bad people are ignoring this topic, would be nice to know for sure.
---

no, i think the 2nd amendment should give me the right to own nuclear arms, how else would I be able to keep Putin from coming to my house and pushing me around? It would also be effective at stopping US government tyranny if I had nukes.
---

No. When one side has nukes and the other doesn't, there is a very high risk of nukes being used. In fact, when neither side has them, there's still a pretty high risk of direct wars, so both sides keeping their arsenals may actually be the most desirable result.

Let's not forget that the US and Russia hated each other much more than they do now during the Cold War. The sole thing stopping it from going hot was the fact that both sides having nukes meant that an actual attack would be suicide.

Nukes work best when everyone has them (or at least, everyone has a close ally who has them), but no one uses them (outside of testing or PNEs, perhaps). Period.
---