People will indeed always find a way to adapt! But I think these comparisons are fundamentally suspect: there really hasn't been think kind of mass-scale infrastructure collapse in a country nearly remotely developed as the US (or Canada, or the EU). The closest thing would probably be the war in Ukraine, and even there the infrastructure failures are relatively localized.
Many countries have nukes - what is their right to have them? Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction?
I wish nukes would go away, but morally speaking if one country can have them then all countries can have them. It’s power politics after that.
not really. If you didn't already have nukes, but your regime is much against the west, i'd argue that it is the right thing for the west to deny it from them. I am attaching no moral argument to this - simply a practical, utilitarian argument.
The reason russia has free reign to invade ukraine is _because_ they have nukes. Iraq invaded Kuwait just the same, but was pressed back in a war - imagine if they did have nukes; it would mean that Iraq could've acted with impunity, and they'd control all of the oil resources that was Kuwaits'.
From a plain and simple moral perspective, IMO every country has the right to build them. Preventing that is about what team you are on rather than morals.
Morale is something a group-in-power uses to control (or influence) the public. Like fear, greed, or compassion. Morale is not a basis for political decisions or political analysis.
Every country's ruler wants nuclear weapons. And every ruler wants the other rulers not to have the bomb at the same time.
To force the others not to develop the bomb, you must put pressure on them. A good way to put pressure is... to have the bomb.
flip it over. west is against you so why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it?
As the parent poster explicitly states, there is no "moral argument" made there, it's a very utilitarian realpolitik argument that allowing you nukes is risky enough that for any western politician respecting their countries' interests the right choice is to enforce submission with all kinds of means (economic, military, espionage).
The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction, so more actors are likely going to be more dangerous than the danger from the current holders.
This risk of "president goes mad" (don't look at the button Vladimir) is minimal when as few countries as possible have nukes.
Of course, this goes against the social justice between countries - but wait, does that concept even exist?
btw, what i meant to say was, "iraq invasion" as you put might be "controversial" but there was no blowback of them as is being done to russia. the EU just either let US do its thing or even joined their side so yeah, controversial is short selling it.
Iraq, afghanistan, libya.... on and on. the US leaves destruction in its wake and its "just controversial" but no sanctions or arming the opposite side.
Oh, also, yemen has been decimated by saudis for years now but because they happen to be US allies, everyone just turns a blind eye. but iran needs "revolution" and "ukraine needs to be saved from russia"..
i am saying the two narratives do not depend on the ground realities, if people die or live. It just depends on the narrative that the US wants to push. That may be fine for the US or EU but everyone else just remembers.