On the surface yes, you're right. But if you look deeper, nuclear armed nations are at risk from all other ones and plan as such. That's the problem. You really can't trust other nations when nuclear weapons are involved.
Replies
Or not involved. Look at the situation of US - Canada. Former allies, now adversaries and likely formal enemies soon. And if Canada had nukes, the US wouldn’t be considering trying to take us.
aug 26, 2025, 9:55 pm • 3 0 • view
We don’t need nukes. We have NATO.
aug 26, 2025, 9:57 pm • 3 1 • view
NATO with the US as member is a bygone, if unofficially so. Look at Europe and Canada and other countries making defence alliances - because no one knows anymore if the US would be ally or enemy
aug 26, 2025, 10:50 pm • 4 1 • view
But at this point NATO is still alive
aug 26, 2025, 11:07 pm • 4 0 • view
Officially, yes. Unofficially - not so much. The US has made it clear that it doesn’t commit to defending allies. NATO art 5 lets members decide how to respond so he’d be more likely to extort billions or offer his negotiating skills than the US military. And of course /1
aug 26, 2025, 11:11 pm • 5 2 • view
The real issue is that NATO members see the real possibility that the US would be on the enemy side. It’s why ReArm Europe happened - Europe is pretty open about the fact that no one can count on the US.
aug 26, 2025, 11:11 pm • 8 2 • view
We agree on this, which leads me to not wanting F 35s.
aug 26, 2025, 11:15 pm • 6 1 • view
Contrary to popular belief the members are NOT obliged to offer military assistance. They assist as they ( individually) deem necessary.
aug 26, 2025, 11:18 pm • 3 1 • view
I had heard that before
aug 26, 2025, 11:19 pm • 3 0 • view
The US is our biggest threat and it is also the most heavily armed country in NATO.
aug 26, 2025, 9:58 pm • 0 1 • view
MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction also doesn’t logic in this new world disorder. MAD is only a useful strategy as a deterrent: but null and void if controlled by madmen that want to rule over ashes. We live in a fragile biodome made up of recycled atmosphere. Use of nukes = self destruction.
aug 26, 2025, 10:45 pm • 3 2 • view
We won’t be getting nukes. We are signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. We *might negotiate a nuclear umbrella agreement such as UK just did with France.
aug 26, 2025, 10:51 pm • 3 1 • view
In 1984, and I don't see public that sentiment has changed.
aug 26, 2025, 11:06 pm • 2 0 • view
Yes, they are a deterrent and a deterrent that we need.
aug 26, 2025, 10:46 pm • 1 0 • view
France has their nuke sub nearby if needed. We are in a joint Nordic security alliance. Moves are being made. We are not as alone as you think we are.
aug 26, 2025, 10:48 pm • 0 0 • view
Nukes can be intercepted and bunkers built.
aug 26, 2025, 9:55 pm • 1 0 • view
Yeah. A worldwide nuclear arms race. Great idea! 😘
aug 26, 2025, 9:58 pm • 1 0 • view
Your country has thousands of nukes so it is a bit rich to tell others they shouldn't have them.
aug 26, 2025, 9:59 pm • 2 1 • view
👆👆
aug 26, 2025, 9:59 pm • 2 0 • view
The Non-Proliferation Treaty. www.iaea.org/topics/non-p...
aug 26, 2025, 10:03 pm • 0 0 • view
We know about it. And as I said earlier - we won’t be breaching it BUT we will very likely negotiate a nuclear umbrella agreement.
aug 26, 2025, 10:05 pm • 0 0 • view
The guarantors breaching it will mean all bets are off.
aug 26, 2025, 10:17 pm • 0 0 • view
Yes and the US was supposed to back that up and has no intention of doing so. Russia was also supposed to back that up and has no intention of doing so. If you want to nullify the non-proliferation treaty then it isn't worth the paper it was written on.
aug 26, 2025, 10:05 pm • 1 0 • view
Exactly. And we wouldn’t be in this position if it wasn’t for the threats of annexation by your dictator wannabe president. Although it is beyond time we look to ourselves for self-protection. Especially our Arctic sovereignty. www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/c...
aug 26, 2025, 10:13 pm • 1 0 • view