• TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        The next time a nuclear weapon is used, none of us will be on the sidelines:

        In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018, then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game changer.” Russian leaders have made clear that they would view any nuclear attack as the start of an all-out nuclear war.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    Viewing the situation in the Middle East, all of those treaties and beaurocracy amount to dick all. Defend yourself, Ukraine.

  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    Ukraine is facing an existential threat. If they have the in-house knowledge and capability to do this, they absolutely should.

    If Russia gives up tomorrow, the war will be over. If Ukraine gives up tomorrow Ukraine will be over.

  • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    Use? Absolutely not. Manufacture and stockpile? Absolutely. The sad state of world affairs at the moment seems to be that this is the one and only guaranteed deterrent.

  • catharso@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Well, test them on ukrainian soil first, so that russians know that the stakes have risen.

    If you lop em over there without warning they’d have “no choice” other then to completely nuke ukraine in retaliation.

    • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      That’s actually not too crazy of an idea. A large part of land is mined and basically unusable for a long while and modern nukes are way less and way shorter radioactive. Blasting away a large part of Russian soldiers at once would send a big message.

      • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        just out of curiosity, would a nuke blow up most of the mines? like 90% or more?

        maybe it’s hard to know, but this is just a thought experiment

        • TaTTe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          Depends on the size of the area you’re considering. In some area, one nuke would blow up 100% of the mines. But in some other, larger, area, it would only blow up 50%.

          But to be fair, using nukes to clear mines is probably one of the least effective methods considering all the collateral damage on villages, fields and nature.

  • drdiddlybadger@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    At this point it might be their only option to be secure from invasion. I mean look at North Korea they’re still there. No nukes is becoming like no flag.

  • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    7 days ago

    Ukraine is the only country in the world that has the full moral authority to develop nuclear weapons. We are the only country to give up nukes and look where that got us.

    That being said “moral authority” isn’t worth shit in this world.

    South Korea, Poland and the Baltic nations should honestly try and develop their own nukes too.