this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
17 points (75.8% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

20431 readers
2 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Case In point I own 10 acres of land in the USA and find the world biggest oil reserve or the world biggest Uranium reserve and I really really hate Britain for whatever reason you can pick. Does that give the UK to enter and bomb my 10 acres back to the stone age?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The more countries with a nuclear deterrent,

…. The more likely someone is to use them.

While the current nuclear powers haven’t always behaved well, the last thing we need is higher likelihood of someone using nuclear weapons. I do t co do e the attack nor believe the stated justification but I agree that it would be bad for more countries to be able to use nuclear weapons

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

…. The more likely someone is to use them.

There is only one country on this planet with nukes that has used them, on civilian targets, twice.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

“mutually Assured Destruction” may not yet have destroyed humanity but it’s insane to think it’s desirable.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

the only time nukes have been used is when 1 side had them, it would seem the more forces that have them the less likely they are to be used

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

That is really naive