Trump has stated he will cut American aid to Ukraine, which makes a majority of total aid. Recently Zelensky stated that if Ukraine’s only hope for sovereignty is its own nuclear arsenal, they will build it.

    • hibsen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      US politics is temporarily not allowed as a topic. This question appears to be about Ukrainian nuclear defense capabilities, which would not qualify as US politics.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I thought politics was banned

      I thought politics were banned?

      If you’re going to be the grammar police, at least take the fucking job seriously. Fascist.

      • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        Way to show you have no understanding of the English language there buddy.

        In English, “politics” is usually treated as a singular noun even though it ends in “s” since there is no singular ‘politic’. We use singular verbs with it, so “politics was banned” is standard.

        ‘Politics’ is different from plurale tantum nouns that are plural by default because they have two parts in one e.g scissors, glasses, pants, etc. This is why we say “Politics is interesting” rather than “Politics are interesting”.

        So do some research before you try to correct the fucking police of grammar idiot.

    • Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Depends what you mean by “use”.

      The Americans are the only ones to have used them in terms of destroying enemy assets (and sadly in that case it was used against civilians). But as a deterrent it’s been used by a LOT of countries all around the world and is still being used for that purpose right now.

      An argument could be made the Cold War could have been an all out world war if it weren’t for nukes, with the short peace after WW2 be considered just a break and not the end.

      I hope nukes won’t be used, but Ukraine is in trouble and if they are backed into a corner and facing destruction who know what they will do. Same could apply to Iran before long, if they have the ability to get nukes somehow, it might be their only hope. Just please let it be as a deterrent and not actual nuclear war.

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          Then let’s threaten to nuke moscow tomorrow if he doesn’t immediately withdraw.

          We’ll make it a really intense threat too, take all our missiles to defcon 1, deploy all our forces, have squadrons of f-22s and f-35s surrounding Ukraine and obviously tail all their borei.

          “It’s just a threat, bro!”

          • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            Well, yes, every chess player and every really powerful man knows that the threat is stronger than the act.

            Unfortunately, yours cannot be taken seriously.

            • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 days ago

              Because?

              This is the whole russian ethos, you must give them everything they want, because they don’t care.

              It’s like the idiot who threatens to eat his own shit, and then does it.

              We get that they have less respect for themselves and peace, but we learned a long time ago that giving in to those people doesn’t win peace, only more war, because you’re rewarding their behavior.

              It is an absolutely credible threat that we could wipe out the entire Russian armed forces with a fraction of our power, and they know that.

              You honestly think they pushed so hard to get Trump in power for no reason? We are the only thing holding them back.

      • Destide@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        “In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.”

  • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    My sympathy for Ukraine says they should.

    My survival instincts as an American would say they shouldn’t because then Russia get big mad and nuke us. I don’t enjoy radiation, so my survival brain is saying they shouldn’t.

    But my suicidal brain after seeing the result of the US presidential election says: Fuck it, let them do whatever, hell we can even gift some to them. Climate is fucked anyways. Lets pretend this is a sandbox game and see what happens. What’s the worst that can happen, die? Hehe I’ve been dying inside and November 5 just cut off my life support.

    So it depends which alter ego you ask. Ye know, like the angel and demon on your shoulders.

    Edit: holy shit its 2AM and I’m wasting time on Lemmy. that just shows how dead on the inside i am… cant sleep, fucking election anxiety.

  • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    YES

    The US and Russia promised to defend Ukraine if it surrendered its nukes. Russia is currently destroying Ukraine, and trump will let them so it’s time since that agreement was now worthless

  • Modva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Do it. Promises from super powers are worthless. Only power itself matters. And all the other countries are aware of it too now.

    • stardust@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Yeah, countries will prioritize self preservation and will gladly let even their allies get destroyed to survive. Can’t trust anyone but themselves. Everyone else is just posturing when it is convenient for them.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Yep.

    The US won’t be there for them anymore once trump takes the reins.

    Ukraine, and potentially anyone in NATO as well, will have to fend for themselves.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Nuclear programs need a lot more leadtime than that, that’s why if Biden had balls he’d give them some of ours before it’s too late

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Even if they have the ability to build one, and do so without Russia turning the facility where they’re building it into rubble with hypersonic missiles, they would need dozens to have full MAD type protection.

    Does Ukraine even have a missile system capable of carrying that kind of payload as far as Moscow?

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.

    Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn’t even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??

    The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It’s just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?

    • demesisx@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Thanks. This is the only reasonable reply in here.

      People are such fucking military industrial complex tech bro lemmings on world.

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      In theory, I agree. Nuclear weaponry should never exist. The power to erase millions of people with a single push of a button is absolute insanity.

      In practice, the world isn’t going to suddenly decide to de-arm itself and dismantle every nuke. So if they aren’t giving up theirs, refusing to make my own over that just leaves me another corpse on the moral high road.

      Sometimes I wonder if the world would be a better place had the Manhattan project been sabotaged by the scientists and nuclear weapons were deemed unfeasible. I’d like to think so.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        It’s the same outcome either way. You don’t have nukes and another country decides to nuke you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! You do have nukes and another country decides to nukes you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! What changes?

        People say deterrence, but what is the deterrence? You built something that you’ll never use? What’s the point?? Oh you will use it? Great! You’ve decided there’s some event that is so bad you’d end the world if it happened. I’m not sure what event that is. Maybe you have one in mind? China attacks India? The world should surely be destroyed then! No? Too bad! You don’t get a say! China and India decide if humanity gets to continue! They definitely wouldn’t do that though.

        They built their nukes to never use them. Which is the same as not having nukes, but having nukes is required so that nobody uses them, which is the same as never building them, but they need to be built so they won’t be used!

  • lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    It will surely help significantly preventing a tactical nuclear strike from russia, though it won’t end the war. It is an absolute last resort trigger. Ukraine will be annihilated after they use it (Russia has way more nuklear weapons).

    So somewhat good for them and OK to do so, though no solution and no substitution for western military aid.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      The reluctance to authorize long range missile strikes into Russia is based on the fear of nuclear strikes on the US/authorizers. The war was always meant to keep oil prices high and trickle through weapon sales until the last Ukrainian.

  • massive_bereavement@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    I know nothing about the subject but doesn’t it require a massive infrastructure investment and time that Ukraine can’t afford right now? I mean even Zaporizhzhia is controlled by the invaders, though I’m not sure if it’s there where they would produce fissile materials. Furthermore, Ukraine’s remaining allies are staunch anti-nuclear proliferation.

  • vordalack@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Ukraine needs to go away. They’re just as corrupt, if not more so, than Russia. The last thing they need is a nuke.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    There’s really no question that any nation that wants actual security should have a nuclear weapon. It’s one of the only things that keeps you safe. This has been proven time and time again. Treaties are all just paper that can be ripped up at a moment’s notice and disregarded as is needed. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that actually protects sovereignty.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    I don’t think it would serve any purpose unless they plan to use it, in which case no they should not. They’re going to have enough on their hands just keeping the orcs at bay until somebody takes out Putin.

    • PolydoreSmith@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      To me this is the same philosophy adopted by Israel when they kill Hamas leaders. This isn’t chess, folks. Killing the king does not end the game.

      Name one time since Hitler that the death of a world leader has resulted in the end of an armed international conflict.