Hacker News Reader

Comment by amai | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> I think it is time to think about that again. Give Ukraine a few thermonuclear bombs that can reach Moscow. Maybe this could convince the Russian government that it is better to stop the offensive and go back to diplomacy.

No, that's a really stupid idea. Upside: maybe the Ukraine war ends sooner. Downside: global thermonuclear war.

NATO is afraid to move the nukes to even Poland. Putin moved the nukes to Belarus.

As I see, such constant displays of weakness may provoke Putin to some wider war. Russian society has transformed. There can be only war in the future. Just look at his government budget: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/30/russias-defenc...

The Baltic states and Ukraine are countries that Russia does not want to exist. The situation is therefore similar to Israel, which is also surrounded by enemy states which don't accept the existence of the Israel. To deter it's enemies from doing stupid things, Israel has nuclear weapons. So I believe also the Baltic states and Ukraine should have nuclear weapons to deter Russia from doing stupid things. And since Russia has already moved nuclear weapons to Belarus, bringing nuclear weapons to the Baltic states and Ukraine is just the symmetrical answer.

It would be symmetric, but not every provocation needs to be answered symmetrically.

It would also be a bad idea. It would add very little in terms of strategic capability, and its effect would be largely symbolic. If anything it would simply stoke the aggressor's internal and external propaganda, and pull more willing conscripts over to the front. It would also cost a lot of money, which would be better spent on drones and shells.

Sometimes the coolest, fiercest response to a provocation is simply not to answer.

Though if there were to be a response, a much better one would be: "Just for that, here's another $200B for Ukraine."

Russia already keeps nukes in Temporary occupied Królewiec.

Then we should allow Iran to build nukes, which means Turkiye, KSA, and UAE need to build nukes, which means....

Nuclear Proliferation only increases the risk of conflict, not decreases it.

50 years of cold war proof otherwise. Better a new cold nuclear war, than a hot conventional war.

> 50 years of cold war proof otherwise. Better a new cold nuclear war, than a hot conventional war.

The Cold War was a bipolar conflict. Rampant nuclear proliferation will not result in a similar situation and will not have the same result.

I probably missed it, but is someone invading Iran?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com