Summary
European officials are preparing a multibillion-dollar defense package to bolster regional security and support Ukraine, announced by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock at the Munich Security Conference.
The package, potentially valued up to 700 billion euros, will fund military training, arms deliveries, and security guarantees amid concerns over Russian aggression and diminishing U.S. contributions to NATO.
The move follows calls for Europe to boost its own defense spending while U.S.-Russian talks, which exclude Ukraine and Europe, on ending the Ukraine conflict continue.
I think we should give a nuke to Ukraine. One would be enough to stop all this BS.
Funny enough, when the USSR split up, Ukraine did have nukes, briefly. It was, you guessed it, the US that convinced them to give all their warheads to Russia.
Source: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/
One won’t be enough. If they use it, Russia will at least hit the whole frontline with tactical nukes, maybe wipe out a city or two. That means Ukraine can’t use it, making it as valuable as a paperweight. For credible nuclear deterrence a country needs a few dozen nuclear weapons and more than one delivery method.
Noone who has nukes can use them, but that’s not the point. Just the threat is enough. One nuke with enough juice to get it to Moscow would be enough. I’m pretty sure if any country ever used a nuke, the whole world would explode.
There are air defenses that could potentially shoot down a missile before it hits its target. So one means there’s merely a probability of destroying Moscow. A psychopath like Putin may be willing to take that risk, and even if Moscow got nuked, Russia would still exist (though obviously it would be significantly diminished), and he’d have justification for using nukes on Ukraine.
For MAD to apply you need enough nukes to be an existential threat to another country when you’re dealing with psychopaths that would be fine with potentially millions of people dying if it means they come out on top in a war.
Them not being involved in the peace talks underlines again how indispensable nuclear weapons are, sadly.
The DSA playing hopscotch with whose ally they are underlines how worthless a shared nuclear umbrella can be.
So a grim lesson for Ukraine, Europe, Taiwan and pretty much any country with any border tensions, or anything another aspiring imperialist might find desireable: Get nukes, own them yourselfes, or risk being thrown aside or being steamrolled. Trump undoing decades of existential anti-proliferation work in mere days.
I keep hoping the Palestinians will get their hands on one for the same reason.
so what would you think hamas do with nukes?
The same thing every other country does with nukes.
Genocide?
Is that a serious point you’re trying to make?
I thought you put it together already. Hamas’ willingness to sacrifice Palestinians is only second to IDF. They’d drop that bomb without hesitation if that meant the final defeat of Israel.
I think your analysis might be the silliest thing I’ve ever seen. A nuclear bomb in both nations’ hands is the only thing that is going to end this war. It’s called ‘Mutually-Assured Destruction’.
But thank you for response.
The limited military capabilities of Palestinians has restrained Israel’s actions.
How should Palestinians use that nuke?
If you say so.
They shouldn’t use it, per se.
Just make threats with it, like most countries do. Having a nuke is a deterrent.
I don’t think Israel would care. Or the USA