The simple rules for life everyone should live by
- Treaties are fake. NO ONE is maintaining your territorial integrity for you.
- Never, ever, give up your nukes. If you don’t have any, BUILD THEM. If you absolutely have to get rid of them, always keep ONE hid in reserve.
- If someone accuses you of having nukes drop everything and get them immediately (this one is paraphrased/potentially misremembered)
Shamelessly stolen from the dark cowboy
I’m pretty sure these were Rachel Jake’s rules
Tech CEO Rachel Jake would never advocate for Nuclear Proliferation
Rules 1 throufh 4 are stolen from TruAnnon
#7 being presented as a bad thing? Should be #1 and say ‘before all else’
Way ahead of you, comrade. I keep a set of mini nukes in my house for a reason.
great work pardner
I wouldn’t know how to start really. Would you have a youtube video?
As a start just remember to always get the interior ministry post and never get into a helicopter
new patch just dropped and a reminder that flying cars count as helicopters
It’s actually pretty simple. You slam some Uranium 235 into Uranium 236 and Plutonium 239 for the simplest weapons. To slam the pieces of metal together, you use convential explosives like cordite. The explosion has to be contained and funneled into the Uranium 236 so it propels in one direction. This is the basic fission bomb like the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The real challenge is sourcing the Uranium and Plutonium. The US, Russia, and China have their own local sources they used to create their initial stockpiles.
The Manhattan Project sourced its uranium from the Congo. A lot of uranium comes from that region, which is good actually, if you’re an African nation looking to seek sovereignty you don’t have to look far. You’d likely already have some.
What does it say about me that I read ‘treaties’ as a diminutive form of ‘treats’ and was confused gor a moment
un-piker-belden theory standing on top here.
This is Biederman erasure
The vast majority of periphery nations simply cannot afford a nuclear deterrent without crazy high spending on the military, think 25%+ of GDP and an advanced knowledge and industrial base to support nuclear science. Such high military spending can easily lead to economic collapse. In contrast, nations with advanced economies and high GDP like Germany, South Korea and Japan could obtain nuclear weapons, build delivery systems, and maintain it all with minimal economic sacrifice by comparison, and already have the industrial and knowledge base to do so.
Nuclear proliferation globally would be one of the worst things to happen for the periphery. Rich countries would easily nuclearise, while poor nations would be left at an even greater military disadvantage. For every North Korea there’d be ten Frances.
North Korea is a unique case scenario. How many nations are led by the same family dynasty for decades who can plan the economy however they decide to, and have their main adversaries capital city in gun based artillery range? Not many.
I’d go onto say that the deterrence value of a small, almost purely nuclear deterrent without second strike capability is much lower than the average person thinks, or is portrayed in movies and TV. Seoul being in North Korean artillery range is a much bigger deal for deterrence than most think. And even with that conventional deterrence North Korea has, they still have to threaten nuclear war at very low levels of conflict to maintain deterrence. A few hours ago they fired off a bunch of shorter range hypersonic glide vehicles in a weapons test, after what happened in Venezuela.
I would argue every North Korea is worth ten Frances nuke wise. Rich countries dont need nukes to bully poor countries, if every rich country had a nuclear program nothing would be different, if a few poor countries manage, they can guarantee sovereignty
All I know is that axis of evil bullshit stopped for dprk the second they successfully tested
In pure abstract simplicity you cant let your opponent have a trump card
Good point about the expense impracticality for poorer nations.
On the other hand, is there any meaningful difference between one France and ten? It is a similar progression to Cold War-era nuclear proliferation, the multiplication of warheads to an absurd scale. There are diminishing returns.
If relative power can be quantified as the ratio 1,000,000:1, then adding 100 to the numerator is insignificant while adding 100 to the denominator can meaningfully shift strategy. The latter of course representing the weaker power acquiring a nuclear option. (Essentially, Maoist dialectical principle of qualitative change arising from quantitative change.)
The power balance is so asymmetrical that the actual degree of imbalance does not matter that much. The resistance strategy has to take into account asymmetry as the starting point.
Just moments before:
Neoliberalism killed the South American Nuclear Program btw.
Only three Latin American countries ever had nuclear weapons, Cuba, Argentina and Brazil. Brazil and Argentina were engaged in a strategic rivalry for regional dominance during the Cold War, particularly while both were under military dictatorships (roughly the 1960s through the 1980s). While Mexico had early nuclear ambitions, it quickly pivoted to lead the non-proliferation movement. Cuba hosted Soviet weapons but did not have an indigenous development program.
Argentina had the most advanced nuclear program in Latin America and was the first to master the fuel cycle (uranium enrichment), which provides the material necessary for a bomb. President Juan Perón established the National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA). Argentina built research reactors and refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), arguing it was discriminatory against developing nations.
Under the military junta, Argentina initiated a secret uranium enrichment project at Pilcaniyeu. Argentina began developing the Condor II medium-range ballistic missile (financed partly by Iraq), which the US feared would be a delivery system for a nuclear warhead. US Pressure and Intervention. Following the Falklands War and the return of democracy, President Raúl Alfonsín placed the program under civilian control.
President Jimmy Carter halted the supply of heavy water and enriched uranium to Argentina due to human rights violations during the “Dirty War” and their refusal to sign the NPT. The US blocked the sale of sensitive technologies (such as high-speed switches and computers) necessary for weaponization.
When Neoliberal Carlos Menem became President, the US exerted massive diplomatic pressure to kill the Condor II missile program. The US promised closer economic ties and removal from arms embargo lists in exchange for dismantling the missile.
In 1975, Brazil signed a massive nuclear energy deal with West Germany to build eight reactors and acquire enrichment technology. The Brazilian military regime, frustrated by international safeguards on their German-supplied technology, launched a secret “Parallel Program” run by the Navy, Army, and Air Force to develop weapons capability independently of civilian oversight.
The military secretly dug a 1,000-foot shaft at the Serra do Cachimbo military base, intended for an underground nuclear test. The US exerted intense diplomatic pressure on West Germany to cancel the nuclear deal with Brazil. While the deal went through, US pressure forced Germany to implement stricter safeguards than originally planned. The US spearheaded the creation of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) specifically in response to the Indo-Pakistani and Latin American nuclear developments, making it much harder for Brazil to import dual-use technology.
In 1990 neoliberal President Fernando Collor de Mello famously traveled to the Cachimbo test site and symbolically shoveled lime into the test shaft, closing it.
Brazil’s ongoing nuclear submarine project (Álvaro Alberto) has drawn scrutiny because naval reactors can potentially use weapons-grade uranium, though Brazil maintains it is for peaceful defense. The U.S. has expressed “concerns” that the nuclear submarine project could be a front for weapons development. Washington also pressures Brazil to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol, which allows more intrusive inspections. President Lula da Silva has criticized the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as “unfair” for allowing a monopoly by existing nuclear powers. He continues to defend Brazil’s right to develop advanced nuclear technology for its navy and energy matrix as a matter of sovereignty.
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was hostile toward Brazil’s nuclear ambitions, particularly when Brazil and Turkey attempted to broker a nuclear fuel deal with Iran in 2010. Currently, U.S. policy under subsequent administrations maintains the same core goal of preventing regional proliferation.
Yep, and Iran was always trying to appease/normalize relations with the West by not going all in with a Nuke. Apparently Khamenei declared a fatwa against building Nuclear Weapons. No matter how much their ballistic missiles scare Israel-Amerikkka, they will continue to weaken Iran with the next attack.
Baller propaganda is back bay-bee
