> 2. Develop nuclear weapons.
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine had nuclear weapons but gave them up because Russia agreed not to invade them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine had nuclear weapons but gave them up because Russia agreed not to invade them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
They had a choice, they just chose the one that didn't lead to war.
The title comes from Pakistani leaders' declaration that they would acquire nuclear weapons capability even if it meant their citizens would have to eat grass. Every government with a viable nuclear weapons program that has abandoned it has come to regret that decision. The nuclear weapons states have utterly failed to make the NPT an attractive bargain for the non-nuclear weapons states, which has completely undermined the goal of non-proliferation.
Putin is insane, but his record of recklessness and betrayal simply doesn’t come close to the mischief of the United States on the global stage.
It is a minor miracle when voters can get their own government to follow through on an inconvenient promise. Promises mean nothing when foreign armies are involved.
ICBM launch silos and hypersonic missiles would be icing on the cake.
I cannot believe there actual proponents of nuclear armament and proliferation in 2022.
There will be more in the years to come if thanks to the current events. Plenty of people here and else where are quick to point out that Ukraine is in NATO and that Russia would not dare attack a nato country so this is all fine but at the end of the day NATO, like any treaty, is just a promise not inherently like the promise the Ukraine was made when they gave up their nuclear weapons. An attack on a NATO country will not mean an automatic response from all other NATO countries but instead prompt a decision from each of the leaders of those countries what would be better for their citizens at that point. Retaining their own protection via NATO is going to be a big influence of that decision but it is never going to be the only factor.
you may say that the threats of nuclear aggression were thinly veiled but not technically apply because the word nuclear has not been used. but if you applied an honest interpretation of what is happening you would say that point 4 does apply.
> 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
nobody wants a nuclear war so it's better if the US stays out of it at this point, but just I'm pointing out that got screwed by more than one signer on that treaty.