Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JumpCrisscross 464 days ago
> They'd more likely get sanctioned to death or invaded if they tried

Sanctions, maybe. Invaded, almost certainly not. If there is a consistent theme to American, Chinese and Russian foreign policy over the last 30 years, it's that there is a nuclear sovereignty respected above all.
1 comments
TeMPOraL 464 days ago
If recent history proves anything, it's that nuclear sovereignty is the only form of actual sovereignty today. But what I'm saying is, the major players don't want anyone new to join the "nuclear club", so they'll stop those trying before they develop that capability.

Despite what 'Qiu_Zhanxuan wrote, you can't actually go from 0 to nuclear sovereignty in 6 months, and you definitely can't hide that you're doing it for long.

link
JumpCrisscross 464 days ago
> you can't actually go from 0 to nuclear sovereignty in 6 months, and you definitely can't hide that you're doing it for long

No, but you can go from 0 to "possibly nuclear everyone yell about it," and stay there until you're actually nuclear.

Nobody will do anything about possibly nuclear. And nobody will do anything once you're nuclear. This was the critical hole in non-proliferation, and for a while it worked, because everyone pretended nuclear sovereignty wasn't a thing, but now that it is there is--and should be--a race to who are the regional powers, and who are subsurvient to them. The Netherlands have a history of being conquered and being rich. It makes sense for them to be a nuclear sovereign.

link
TeMPOraL 463 days ago
> This was the critical hole in non-proliferation, and for a while it worked

Fair, but I imagine everyone learned from that, too.

> The Netherlands have a history of being conquered and being rich. It makes sense for them to be a nuclear sovereign.

Arguably, it makes sense for every country to be one, if they could pull it off, but so far it seems they're sufficiently deterred from trying.

link