Works both ways, while the USA is thinking about invading another country with nuclear weapons they have to know that will lead to nukes from that country hitting their major cities which will probably make them think twice.

Then the discussion moves to pre-emptive strikes which have the same problem if the other country already has nukes. Eventually we end up in this situation where some might see even pursuing a nuclear weapons technology as justification for a war of aggression like we’re seeing in Iran so you certainly need to be careful during that phase but once you get there you’re in a much safer place than you used to.

they exist to prevent conflict at all because everyone knows the consequences of using them.

Putin attacking Ukraine has certainly played a part here but the big and much more impactful final push for this has been NATO members losing trust in the USA and its nuclear umbrella because of Trump. After all every one of these European nations except for Ukraine which is the only non-member was happy with the NATO guarantees for a very long time before this.

The great powers got veto rights for them to participate at all in it and for them to be able to do as they please in the future. I don’t think “weaponising” is the correct framing because from the point of view of probably pretty much everyone else other than them (and of course even for them when it comes to the other ones) it would absolutely be a good thing if the UN was able to limit their actions too. The people who came up with the whole concept of international law certainly would not have preferred this situation where the law is not the same for everyone, it’s against the basic principles of rule of law.

This comment should win some kind of an award. How on earth could anyone think the history of Ukrainian culture began 30 years ago when a regime that itself had only existed for around 70 years fell apart?

Nuo Sanna Heikinheimon vastaukset tuossa jutun lopussa ovat kyllä täysin ala-arvoisia ja antavat sellaisen kuvan että suurinpiirtein halveksii toimittajaa ja ettei poliisijohto ota asiaa lainkaan vakavasti:

MOT: Kuinka ongelmallinen on tilanne, jossa valvontakamera osoittaa, että poliisi käytännössä valehtelee, poliisijohtaja Sanna Heikinheimo?

– SH: Ei se lähtökohtaisesti ole ongelmallinen tilanne. Mutta tietysti ristiriitainen tilanne ja tulee sekä esitutkinnassa että tuomioistuinkäsittelyssä harkittavaksi.

MOT: Suomessa on poliisiväkivaltaa. Mihin toimiin aiotte ryhtyä sen kitkemiseksi?

SH: – Aika paljon olemme tehneet. Emme näe tarpeelliseksi ryhtyä lisätoimenpiteisiin.

Yeah, it’s a consequence of pretending that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans and ending up helping Trump get in power.

It wasn’t just the invasion that needed a diplomatic solution, there was after all a war already going on in Eastern Ukraine since 2014 even if it had somewhat frozen. The Russian troop concentrations were interpreted by some like Zel as just posturing in order to bring that conflict to an end through a diplomatic solution while the previous agreements had failed.

Of course there could still have been diplomatic measures, Zelensky wanted to negotiate with the Russians until the very end and Ukraine seemed to believe Putin wouldn’t ultimately invade even when USA was saying they’re almost certainly going to and released supporting intel.

That’s not to say Russia wasn’t always in the wrong since the 2013 events of course but it doesn’t mean the Ukrainians weren’t willing to compromise on some things in 2022 just to get some normalcy.

Sekin vaikuttaa miten väärinkäytöksiin suhtaudutaan. USA:n kohdalla esimerkiksi minkäänlaiset kunnon tuomiot poliiseille on melkoinen harvinaisuus.

Haalarikameroita vihdoin toivon kyllä Suomenkin poliisille ja sillä tavalla ettei niiden käyttö ole vapaaehtoista kuten aikaisemmin suunniteltiin, nyttemmin ymmärtääkseni järkiinnytty siltä osin.

Was mostly meming about the bs Trump has been spewing by using his words about Ukraine but yeah I’m fairly convinced she would have not started an illegal war against Iran together with Israel… or let Israel completely steamroll Gaza while making plans to transform it into a holiday resort for the rich.

Also, who cares if he called the US military lethal, that’s in fact a true statement but it matters whether or not you use it to start illegal wars and settle personal grudges, rob other countries of their natural resources, kill civilians in the Caribbean or bomb schools with almost 200 little girls because the rules of engagement are “bold” etc.

It would never have happened if Kamala was the president and if it had she’d have ended it in 24 hours.

edit: looks like people have not been paying attention to Trump’s comments and/or the far lefties feel personally attacked by this, lol

This is the latest German declaration to the IAEA: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1998/infcirc549a2-26.pdf

• 350kg of fresh HEU for research reactors
• 940kg of HEU in spent fuel

The former could be used for breakthrough in just a few months. The latter would take maybe 1-2 years to process first.

In addition to the credible deterrence France has, Germany actually already stockpiles highly enriched uranium that would be enough for hundreds of advanced warheads. Sweden is also well positioned to get to nuclear missiles in just a few years with a concentrated effort.

The Trump administration’s policies are Trump’s policies. There is no US separate from that. I think that should be very clear to anyone who has watched how much he has reshaped the federal government in a year.

Look, you’re welcome to think Trump is a very stable genius that is actually playing 4D chess with all this. I don’t think I’m interested in continuing the discussion in that case though.

Again, such a space shield capable of stopping a nuclear response to any meaningful degree from a major western power does not and isn’t going to exist anytime soon with the level of technology currently available. It’s just as much BS now as it was when Reagan announced his SDI. Only thing that does is a limited and somewhat unreliable system that can protect against very limited strikes as might happen if a terrorist actor managed get control of a few nuclear ICBMs.

yes they considered it early on and deemed it impossible. Bethe commented later on the anecdote: “There was never any possibility of causing a thermonuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere… Ignition is not a matter of probabilities; it is simply impossible.”

https://www.inverse.com/science/did-oppenheimer-really-worry-about-setting-the-atmosphere-on-fire

Or they could just be incompetent when it comes to geopolitics just like they are on so many other issues. There’s a lot that they’re doing that just isn’t defensible rationally. Tariffs, vaccination and medical research, driving away the educated immigrants, energy independence…

I’ve seen nothing that suggests USA plans to withstand a nuclear attack from China. I wouldn’t expect them be either because they can’t.

How exactly the capability can be developed when adversaries don’t want you to is certainly something that needs to be thought about. One part of the puzzle is France that has been signaling they are willing to provide a nuclear umbrella for Europe and just announced some partner countries as well as the expansion of their stockpiles.

I of course don’t disagree that conflicts need to be resolved with reason if possible but developing a nuclear deterrence doesn’t exclude doing that.