With Trump walking away from the Iran deal and lavishing North Korea with praise and legitimacy, his administration has been sending a very clear message: nuclear disarmament is for suckers.

Which will be the first nation to act on this invitation to proliferation? My money is either on Japan or Saudi Arabia.

The Duchy of Grand Fenwick.............according to Leonard Wibberly

PVW said:
With Trump walking away from the Iran deal and lavishing North Korea with praise and legitimacy, his administration has been sending a very clear message: nuclear disarmament is for suckers.
Which will be the first nation to act on this invitation to proliferation? My money is either on Japan or Saudi Arabia.

Your thinking is so yesterday.  Consider this announcement from our President.  See?  It's that easy when you think of life as reality T.V.

Trump declares North Korea 'no longer a nuclear threat'

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/politics/trump-north-korea-nuclear-threat/index.html

Probably Canada and Mexico, they want to be taken seriously by the US too.

I was put in mind of this topic again when I saw this column in the Washington Post opinion section:

Emmanuel Macron is right: NATO is over

The passage that stood out to me:

What can be done? The moment has arrived for France and Germany to adopt more than baby steps to make Europe great again. This would require them to establish a Franco-German condominium to assert their interests, including the joint development of new nuclear weapons to deter Russia and China. It would also allow Europe to win an independent footing from an increasingly hostile United States.

I think that pausing the proliferation of nuclear weapons more than they already had was one of the achievements of Cold War policy; now people are openly arguing for increased proliferation and it disturbs me. In addition the the short-term foreign policy disasters I feared might play out under Trump before his election, this unraveling of the work of non-proliferation was among the long-term foreign policy disasters I feared from him.

On a related topic, how much attention did the mainstream media give to this?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/15/nuclear-weapons-ernest-moniz-accident-risk

Nuclear risk at its highest since Cuban missile crisis, says ex-energy secretary

Nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz says world has been lucky to avoid accidental weapon launch – and risk is growing

Julian Borger in Washington

Fri 16 Feb 2018 02.30 EST Last modified on Fri 16 Feb 2018 17.00 EST

The world has been lucky so far to escape the launch of nuclear weapons through miscalculation, but the odds of such a catastrophic accident are increasing, according to the former US energy secretary Ernest Moniz.

Moniz, a nuclear physicist who played a central role in securing a landmark non-proliferation agreement with Iran in 2015, said the margin for error in avoiding disaster was getting thinner because of the introduction of new, smaller weapons, the broadening of circumstances in which their use is being contemplated, and a lack of high-level communications between major nuclear weapons powers.

Moniz, who is now CEO and co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, pointed to a recent false alarm by Hawaii’s public alert system as the sort of technological glitch that could lead to fatal miscalculation. The alert sent islanders running for cover, and it took nearly 40 minutes for the mistake to be rectified.

“Thirty-eight minutes is substantially longer than the decision time that President Trump or President Putin or other leaders with nuclear weapon states would have for a response to a warning about significant incoming missiles,” Moniz said.

“We know we’ve had those warnings many times in history and we’ve managed so far to dodge the bullet,” he said. “But dodging the bullets is more difficult when there’s not significant communications going on and a lot of tensions between the countries.”

Both the US and the Soviet Union came close to launching their nuclear weapons several times over the course of the cold war because technical glitches or faulty analysis gave the false impression they were under imminent attack.

Moniz said the risks of miscalculation had been further heightened by two elements of the Trump administration’s nuclear posture review, published earlier this month.

The review calls for the development of a low-yield submarine-launched missile, which critics say risks being seen by generals and political leaders as more “usable” than megaton thermonuclear weapons.

The same criticism is made of plans, inherited from the Obama administration, to spend $10bn modernising another tactical nuclear weapon, the B61 gravity bomb.

In a new report this week, the NTI warned that the weapons may be useless as a deterrent and constitute a potentially catastrophic security liability.

Trump’s nuclear posture review also expands the conditions in which the US might consider using its nuclear arsenal to include devastating attacks on infrastructure, including cyber-attacks.

“The use of a new class of submarine-launched smaller weapons seems to us to just add to the issues of miscalculation,” Moniz said. The former head of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics department added that widening the conditions of nuclear use to include cyber-attack was particularly worrisome as it is rarely absolutely clear who was responsible for such attacks.

“A major infrastructure cyber-attack could not be a nationally endorsed attack at all. It could be from some third-party hackers who might enjoy a nuclear exchange between the two major powers,” he said.

PVW said:

With Trump walking away from the Iran deal and lavishing North Korea with praise and legitimacy, his administration has been sending a very clear message: nuclear disarmament is for suckers.

Which will be the first nation to act on this invitation to proliferation? My money is either on Japan or Saudi Arabia.

 Turkey.  

paulsurovell said:

On a related topic, how much attention did the mainstream media give to this?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/15/nuclear-weapons-ernest-moniz-accident-risk

No idea.  Could you check to see what "mainstream media" said in the year-and-a-half since then, instead of asking others here to find out? 

By the way, other than that nuclear weapons are the subject, it's not otherwise related.

Trump's back, and this fact alone is a clear signal to the rest of the world that the US really is an unreliable partner. And his foreign policy moves so far, especially in regards to Ukraine, are really reinforcing the message that if you don't have your own nuclear deterrence, you're at risk from predatory nations like China, Russia, and at least some of the time the U.S.

Bets on which nation will be first to take action on the obvious implications?

PVW said:

Trump's back, and this fact alone is a clear signal to the rest of the world that the US really is an unreliable partner. And his foreign policy moves so far, especially in regards to Ukraine, are really reinforcing the message that if you don't have your own nuclear deterrence, you're at risk from predatory nations like China, Russia, and at least some of the time the U.S.

Bets on which nation will be first to take action on the obvious implications?

Imagine if it was Ukraine.  

"Thirty years ago, on 5 December 1994, at a ceremony in Budapest, Ukraine joined Belarus and Kazakhstan in giving up their nuclear arsenals in return for security guarantees from the United States, the UK, France, China and Russia."

Poland, all Baltic nations

NATO, and the US alliances with nations in the Pacific, weren't only defense alliances, they were non-proliferation programs.

Finland, Poland, followed by the rest of the Baltic states.

Morganna said:

PVW said:

Trump's back, and this fact alone is a clear signal to the rest of the world that the US really is an unreliable partner. And his foreign policy moves so far, especially in regards to Ukraine, are really reinforcing the message that if you don't have your own nuclear deterrence, you're at risk from predatory nations like China, Russia, and at least some of the time the U.S.

Bets on which nation will be first to take action on the obvious implications?

Imagine if it was Ukraine.  

"Thirty years ago, on 5 December 1994, at a ceremony in Budapest, Ukraine joined Belarus and Kazakhstan in giving up their nuclear arsenals in return for security guarantees from the United States, the UK, France, China and Russia."

This is false. They did not have nuclear weapons—they belonged to Russia and only Russia had the operating codes.  When the Soviet Union broke up, Russia was the country delegated to collect all the nukes. 

nan said:

This is false. They did not have nuclear weapons—they belonged to Russia and only Russia had the operating codes.  When the Soviet Union broke up, Russia was the country delegated to collect all the nukes. 

This is false. I corrected Nan here:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/what-does-putin-want-and-whatbout-it?page=next&limit=20310#discussion-replies-3674180

Rather than turning this thread into yet another venue for pro-Putin propaganda, I'd recommend anyone wanting to engage in that particular bit of misinformation to do so in that thread.

PVW said:

nan said:

This is false. They did not have nuclear weapons—they belonged to Russia and only Russia had the operating codes.  When the Soviet Union broke up, Russia was the country delegated to collect all the nukes. 

This is false. I corrected Nan here:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/what-does-putin-want-and-whatbout-it?page=next&limit=20310#discussion-replies-3674180

Rather than turning this thread into yet another venue for pro-Putin propaganda, I'd recommend anyone wanting to engage in that particular bit of misinformation to do so in that thread.

No, you tried but I corrected you. Let them read the thread and they will see. There are important details that need to be understood. 

nan said:

PVW said:

Rather than turning this thread into yet another venue for pro-Putin propaganda, I'd recommend anyone wanting to engage in that particular bit of misinformation to do so in that thread.

Let them read the thread and they will see.

I read it, and I saw.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

PVW said:

Rather than turning this thread into yet another venue for pro-Putin propaganda, I'd recommend anyone wanting to engage in that particular bit of misinformation to do so in that thread.

Let them read the thread and they will see.

I read it, and I saw.

Good. 

There's a good column by David French in today's print NY Times, that relates to this discussion.

It also relates to the discussion in the "Putin Wants" thread and in various threads about Trump's horrendous actions in government (and even, at the end, in responding to the "vaccine denialism" voiced here on yet other threads), but I'll reference it in this thread for now.

Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/16/opinion/trump-ukraine-nukes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xk4.4Ix-.fZLl_8fh8KHa&smid=url-share

Some excerpts (people should read the whole thing, especially anyone who is going to challenge the author's statements, that's why I used up one of my "gift links" to share it):

It starts with reference to Ukraine: "Can a nation be truly free and independent if it doesn’t possess a nuclear arsenal? That question is being answered right now, on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine. If a nation’s conventional military can stop an aggressive, nuclear-armed nation in a defensive struggle, then there is hope for the viability of conventional deterrence. If, however, a conventionally armed nation is doomed to fail — because it lacks the resources (including the allies) to defend itself — then look for more countries to pursue nuclear weapons. They will choose self-defense over subservience."

It then expands its scope, for how policies in other nations would be affected -

"I see the events of the past week, and I see weakness — weakness that makes a world war (including a potential nuclear exchange) more likely, not less.

"Think of it like this: Will our abandoned allies be content with vassal status in the face of aggressive, nuclear-armed powers such as Russia, China and (to a lesser extent) North Korea? Or will they seek their own ultimate security guarantee, the nuclear weapon that would render any invasion of their sovereign territory utter madness?

"Why wouldn’t South Korea pursue a nuclear deterrent? Could an enormous strategic shift overcome even Japan’s deep-seated resistance to nuclear weapons? Poland is in the middle of an intense and expensive military buildup, but wouldn’t an atomic arsenal make it even more secure? ...

"After the U.S. military and its coalition allies swept through Saddam Hussein’s immense ground army in a 100-hour offensive during Operation Desert Storm, Krishnaswamy Sundarji, a former chief of staff of the Indian Army, said, “One principal lesson of the gulf war is that if a state intends to fight the United States, it should avoid doing so until and unless it possesses nuclear weapons.”

"If that’s the sentiment of countries that might face the United States, how much more will it be the sentiment of countries that face looming threats from Russia and China?

"America’s potential retreat coincides with a rise in right-wing nationalism in Europe, a movement that is not known for its pacifism or for its willingness to engage in multilateral cooperation. So now we’re looking at a potential new arms race, in which it’s not just the rogue states like Iran that will succumb to the nuclear temptation."

nohero said:

There's a good column by David French in today's print NY Times, that relates to this discussion.

It also relates to the discussion in the "Putin Wants" thread and in various threads about Trump's horrendous actions in government (and even, at the end, in responding to the "vaccine denialism" voiced here on yet other threads), but I'll reference it in this thread for now.

Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/16/opinion/trump-ukraine-nukes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xk4.4Ix-.fZLl_8fh8KHa&smid=url-share

Some excerpts (people should read the whole thing, especially anyone who is going to challenge the author's statements, that's why I used up one of my "gift links" to share it):

It starts with reference to Ukraine: "Can a nation be truly free and independent if it doesn’t possess a nuclear arsenal? That question is being answered right now, on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine. If a nation’s conventional military can stop an aggressive, nuclear-armed nation in a defensive struggle, then there is hope for the viability of conventional deterrence. If, however, a conventionally armed nation is doomed to fail — because it lacks the resources (including the allies) to defend itself — then look for more countries to pursue nuclear weapons. They will choose self-defense over subservience."

It then expands its scope, for how policies in other nations would be affected -

"I see the events of the past week, and I see weakness — weakness that makes a world war (including a potential nuclear exchange) more likely, not less.

"Think of it like this: Will our abandoned allies be content with vassal status in the face of aggressive, nuclear-armed powers such as Russia, China and (to a lesser extent) North Korea? Or will they seek their own ultimate security guarantee, the nuclear weapon that would render any invasion of their sovereign territory utter madness?

"Why wouldn’t South Korea pursue a nuclear deterrent? Could an enormous strategic shift overcome even Japan’s deep-seated resistance to nuclear weapons? Poland is in the middle of an intense and expensive military buildup, but wouldn’t an atomic arsenal make it even more secure? ...

"After the U.S. military and its coalition allies swept through Saddam Hussein’s immense ground army in a 100-hour offensive during Operation Desert Storm, Krishnaswamy Sundarji, a former chief of staff of the Indian Army, said, “One principal lesson of the gulf war is that if a state intends to fight the United States, it should avoid doing so until and unless it possesses nuclear weapons.”

"If that’s the sentiment of countries that might face the United States, how much more will it be the sentiment of countries that face looming threats from Russia and China?

"America’s potential retreat coincides with a rise in right-wing nationalism in Europe, a movement that is not known for its pacifism or for its willingness to engage in multilateral cooperation. So now we’re looking at a potential new arms race, in which it’s not just the rogue states like Iran that will succumb to the nuclear temptation."

I read this article and I was horrified by David French's neocon views.  He equates diplomacy and attempts to arrange peace negotiations with weakness.  His argument depends on lies such as Ukraine being a sovereign country.  Anyone who can't at least start with this being a proxy war is not a serious writer.  He's also a major Russiaphobe.  He uses the standard NATO/Atlantic Council etc. propaganda - mentioning the taking of Crimea without any of the antecedents or threats that put that into play.  It's easy to accuse someone of an unprovoked invasion when you pretend nothing else significant happened.  But, when writers do this they are clearly writing propaganda, not nonfiction.

This guy actually seems to think it would be OK for Ukraine to join NATO - I.e. WWIII.  He conveniently does not mention the reality on the ground where Ukraine is being slaughtered and lining up it's 18-24 year olds for the meat grinder. He says Trump/Hegseth offered significant concessions from the get go, but he is delusional if he thinks the big loser in a war has much leverage.  He seems to think that Ukraine can still win.  Delusional.

He sides with the moronic Europeans who have sacrificed their own economies for Ukraine.  I don't know who these people report to but it is not the people in the countries they are supposed to serve.  I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'm fine with us getting out of this war and making Europe pay it's fair share for this stupid military alliance that does not make us safer. 

He wonders if Europe will be content with being "vassal states" ignoring the fact that that's what they have been doing for the past two years.  Only now the US is talking about it honestly and directly and they can't handle the truth. Does he not remember the balless wonder Olaf Schultz nodding and smiling while Biden said they would get rid of Nordstream?

He ends by what seems advocating for more countries to get nuclear weapons which is a crazy, but typical neocon idea. If Trump does anything good during his term, it might be getting us away from this destructive neocon world view and foreign policy. I can't say he is going that way completely, but this does seem like an improvement. 

Then this guy goes off on some neocon tangent that includes vaccines and supposed right-wing governments (who not surprisingly want to get along with Russia and rebuild the Nordstream pipeline and maybe help their economies).  

He talks about the "genius" of the American led world order with lies so thick you could make flufanutter sandwiches with them.  He says he voted for a Democrat because, basically, they were the closest to his neocon warmongering world view.  Those who are participating in the thread about what Democrats can do to protest Trump and presumably start win elections again - can start by banishing people like David French from the table. His ideas have already infected the party enough.   Keep supporting David French's views and keep losing elections.