Several TYT hosts have said “Less Nato the better” but they never consider how less NATO absolutely means more nuclear bombs. If you are a casual tyt member and you want me to explain that, please ask. If you are a TYT host and you don’t understands that, stop talking about it until you do.
1 Like
I would love to learn more! My understanding of politics, foreign policy, and international news is very basic (at best), so the more I can learn the better. I’m coming to all of this late, but I’m trying.
3 Likes
Either a nation has a credible nuclear deterrent or it don’t. Ukraine doesn’t and it gets invaded. Russia has one and it doesn’t. A nuclear India guaranteed a nuclear Pakistan Bush’s illegal Iraq invasion propelled North Korea to go nuclear and has Iran on the threshold. If the US withdraws it’s nuclear commitment to NATO we will see more nukes in Europe. (Politico: Europe Is Quietly Debating a Nuclear Future Without the US). Less NATO = More Nukes.
There’s more detail about the type of Nukes GB and France have, but I’ll spare you that.
1 Like
EEK! Looks like I have some research to do. Thank you.
1 Like
But more NATO also = more nukes?
The whole reason iran is developing nukes isn’t because of Iraq invasion.
I stated elsewhere, after the HW bush Iraq invasion in 1991, UNSC res 687 was passed which was supposed to implement a no nuke zone over middle east. We have resolutely stood in the way of that for 3 decades now because we wanted Israel to have nukes.
Like you said nuclear India = nuclear pak.
But Nuclear China = Nuclear India
Nuclear Russia = Nuclear China (they don’t always get along)
Nuclear USA = Nuclear Russia.
So I don’t think more or less NATO drives nuclear armament. Threat of nuclear armament is good post hoc reasoning for expansion of NATO tho
Except Nuclear expansion in Europe has been static for generations in parallel with NATO and at the suggestion of US exit from NATO European nations are discussing nuclear alternatives. Again, you have a premise then you go find facts to support that premise. My advice to you is read Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson to understand why you embrace this logically fallacious way of thinking.
And your problem is you are attacking the asumed intent of the person rather than countering the argument. The fact that you think NATO only equals europe is hilarious. You statements are in search of logic for me to even start finding fallcies. You are projecting it seems. Because according to you nuclear armament is justification for NATO exasnsion. But conversely, as I have explained, threat of NATO expansion is the justification for nuclear armament for other countries. you can retrospectively justify this manifest destiny all you want, but this is a chicken and egg situation. I guess you are saying we should just expand and then bomb the shit out of anyone who tries to get nukes. Or starve them with sanctions. And you want to advise other people?
1 Like
North Korea went nuclear to protect itself from NATO expansion?
have you heard of this country called south Korea? It borders south Korea. Look it up. If you are going to make the argument that NK nuclearisation had nothing to do with USA’s bases in SK and japan, I cant take you seriously
1 Like
If I had a picture of me eating popcorn and knew how to post it I would do so right here. 
3 Likes