You can also just... not needlessly antagonise literally everybody around you.

>>64918395
Correct, the only way to be a sovereign nation is to have nuclear warheads that you can deliver to any country that might want to fuck with you.
This is why the current nuclear powers fear new nuclear powers reducing the number of countries they can invade.

>>64918395
Nukes didnt save Saddam, though.

>>64918405
May I see them?

>>64918405
How could a nuke save Saddam when he didn't have one?

>>64918405
Saddam didn't have nukes, he had chemical weapons.

>>64918395
It's not an option for most countries because they can't do it.

File: principal-skinner-no.gif (392.7 KB)

392.7 KB GIF

>>64918406

>>64918418
It's more of a political issue, most countries could enrich uranium and build a pit with 1940s technology, they don't want to risk the political backlash of sanctions or invasion.
As for countries that aren't poor as shit SILEX laser enrichment is a much faster and cheaper option per KG of uranium but it takes a lot of R&D & startup capital to build it in the first place.

>>64918445
>It's more of a political issue, most countries could enrich uranium and build a pit with 1940s technology
They actually can't. They're all dependent on multiple imports to make this happen and it is very obvious when they try to import that stuff. Just look at Iran. The US fucked with their centrifuges through a virus because they were using US centrifuges. The viruses were unwittingly delivered to the machines by Russian nuclear engineers Iran had hired to help run the program cause Iran couldn't do it themselves.

This isn't "hurr durr it's 40s tech". It's difficult for one nation to do it, and your hypothesis would fall apart entirely if like 50 small nations at once tried this shit. There'd be no internationally available equipment and expertise in quantity for all those nations.

>>64918445
Putting the cart before the horse innit? What practical detterence does a nuke with no way of deploying it in your attacker's cities offer?

File: smugjak.png (4.2 KB)

4.2 KB PNG

>>64918467
>super duper advanced 1940s technology only giga-genius could understand and can't be done by anyone today and like even AI is confused and won't tell you how to do it
>totally not gigantic hoax like the moon landing no one can pull off again for some strange reason

>>64918395
This leftist argument makes no sense. Iran tried to get a nuke and look what happened to them. NK was only able to get its nuke because China would never let it get invaded.

>>64918490
>greentext/reaction image shitpost

See? You have to be this stupid to believe that.

>>64918395
I have been saying this. Peace through proliferation.
The large nations do not need arsenals as numerous as they are. If they spread warheads around to non-nuclear nations under the promise they WOULD NOT expand borders under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
This would allow weak nations a means to focus their meager resources on more important issues internally than stopping aggressive neighbors.
No expansion includes even legally ceded lands from willing neighbors. Their borders will never shift again.
If a nuclear nation does expand in any territory all other nations are obliged to launch nuclear attack after a 24hr window to return any taken lands.

>>64918445
>the political backlash of sanctions or invasion.
This is why they can't do it. There is nothing more dangerous than your enemies knowing you have 70% of a nuke.

>>64918534
Or if you have likely achieved one or two nukes but have limited delivery platforms. North Korea has barely enough platforms to be considered credible, if all of them work.

>>64918467
Refining and the warhead are piece of cake for any advanced nation but delivery and maintenance are expensive.

>>64918395
>continously destabilize and train terrorist groups pissing off the entire region
>bRo tHeY nEeD nUkEs
If Iran had nuclear weapons there would be 20 mushroom clouds over Iran right now.

>>64918563
>Refining and the warhead are piece of cake for any advanced nation
They aren't. Unless you're bothering to refine fuel for nuclear power, you don't have any reason to have or manufacture the equipment for refining. You don't have any reason to import uranium. Countries that don't make active use of uranium mining cannot justify mining it, it's expensive for what you get unless the state directly funds you for geo-strategic reasons.

Making a nuke isn't cheap for anyone. It requires specific skills and equipment and it is nakedly obvious when you're trying to do that. As far as I can tell, the only country that has ever "gotten away with it" is North Korea, and that country is a very special circumstances. They didn't do it on their own, of course, their nature as both a pariah to all but a useful one to some has led to technology sharing. On top of that, North Korea gaining nukes has greatly increased the push around the world to stop countries like that from getting nukes.

>>64918467
>because they were using US centrifuges
They were using German PLCs, they had to use a retard to bridge the airgap and there is no way for a PLC to be fucked with remotely so long as a retard doesn't bridge the airgap.
t. industrial electrician

>>64918486
Depends on who you expect to attack, Pakistan, India and North Korea don't need global projection.

>>64918534
A couple of countries have tried maintaining "low nuclear latency", having a core / pit, explosive lenses but not a fully functional bomb. The concept is you aren't a nuclear power and don't get pressure for building the bomb but you can build bombs rapidly if they are needed.
Iran tried this so that shows how well it works.

>>64918563
Delivery depends on range requirement, it can be anything from arty for the Norks, planes for western Europe or ICBMs for global strike.

>>64918587
Why are you listing only political reasons we were talking about capability. A country like Sweden could easily build enrichment equipment and start building warheads. It's not hard.

>>64918587
>Countries that don't make active use of uranium mining cannot justify mining it,
Aussie here, you are very wrong.

>>64918401
>You can also just... not needlessly antagonise literally everybody around you.
Greenlandistan and its murderous regime will pay for its many, many crimes.

>>64918395
So what you're saying is we need to flambé chubby Kim next to prove that having a nuke isn't actually a guarantee of safety?

>>64918499
>Iran tried to get a nuke
Barely. Had they actually been putting in the effort properly, they would have had about a hundred warhead by now.

>>64918401
This is the real option. Like, I get funding the insurgencies after Dubya spat in your face and Clinton cockblocked you from invading Afghanistan to slap the Taliban's shit in, and I get attempting to shore up Assad.

But Iran did a lot, and I mean a LOT of other shit aside from that.
>>64918565
This too. Iran would have also wasted their arsenal on dumb bullshit as well.
>>64918587
India and Pakistan.

>>64918409
So do you if you mix all the bottles under the kitchen sink.

>>64918611
>They were using German PLCs, they had to use a retard to bridge the airgap and there is no way for a PLC to be fucked with remotely so long as a retard doesn't bridge the airgap.
They were using American centrifuges. The specific component targeted doesn't matter, the point being that the overall systems were American.

The airgap you're talking about was Russian computers being hacked and carrying the viruses via USB. This was mandatory given that Iran had hired Russians, who live in Russia, to appear periodically to maintain the US centrifuges.

>>64918619
I haven't listed a single political reason. I've pointed out repeatedly that it is obvious when some random country tries to build a nuke.

>>64918627
No, you're wrong. Most uranium mines in Australia over the decades have shut down down due to lack of profit, not available minerals. Australia's uranium exports in the 20th century were more for weapons than energy in the first place, this isn't the case anymore.

>>64918633
India and Pakistan don't have functional nuclear threats. Their delivery platforms and functional number of nukes are pathetic. Unlike North Korea, both of them can actually give a real enemy they'd like to nuke who actually does fuck with them military. They only maintain enough nukes with sufficient range to deter only each other.

>>64918445
>>64918467
>Enrichment
Pffttt plebs. Use deterministic transport modeling like a real nukefag.

>>64918663
>They were using American centrifuges.
They weren't, a centrifuge is a well balanced metal tube that can be produced by any country that can balance helicopter rotors.
>the specific component targeted doesn't matter
Yes it does because a Programable Load Controller (PLC) controls the motors driving the centrifuges and where is in made has no bearing on the Stuxnet attack.

>No, you're wrong. Most uranium mines in Australia over the decades have shut down down due to lack of profit
Last year we exported 4820 tons of Uranium ore, enough to produce 482 tons of 90% enriched weapons grade uranium.
You can say Australia is the exception as a NATO ally (not member) but the reality is in long term geopol planning it might be worth making allies, building the bomb and then going independent.

>>64918528
Nah, there's too many crazy motherfuckers to trust all national governments to be rational.
You could believe behind closed doors Kim Jong might be saying 'good job acting crazy everyone, I think they actually bought it that I'd nuke Seoul if they don't send more famine aid'.
Demonstrably leaders like Saddam, Gaddafi, Nguema have given up a life of luxury and power to essentially commit suicide from mad brutal miscalulations instead.
Khemeni basically let himself get assassinated like he was in a hurry to get his virgins and his decapitated military started firing ballistic missiles at all surrounding neutral countries at random. There's some people you just can't trust with the bomb.

>>64918565
Yeah, and some mushroom clouds over Israel, too. [spoiler]Which might be the best outcome for the world[/spoiler]

>>64918710
Australia's uranium mining hasn't been a good business decision at any point. They are in constant competition with other countries for export and are only viable through what are essentially bailouts for strategic reasons, both national and international bailouts.

This logic doesn't count for some random country that just suddenly decides it wants to build a nuke. You'd have to build up uranium mining as a losing industry for no other reason than "cuz" while hoping nobody notices your bothering to waste a bunch of money on a totally not nuclear program.

The fact that Australia has specifically avoided nuclear electricity is, in part, a by product of the fact that they're a uranium exporter. It shows they aren't looking for nukes.

>>64918663
>Most uranium mines in Australia over the decades have shut down down due to lack of profit, not available minerals
Most uranium minutes in Australia shut down because their copper mines produce enough uranium to saturate the market. The amount of uranium in Australia is insane, it's 20-40% of the world's total reserves depending on how you count.

>>64918401
are we talking about israel?
>>64918633
>But Iran did a lot, and I mean a LOT of other shit aside from that.
just like everyone else does

Muscovy's turd world order taking a lot of losses lately lmao

>>64918409
only america is allowed to use those

>>64918764
>Most uranium minutes in Australia shut down because their copper mines produce enough uranium to saturate the market.
All you're saying is that investing in uranium exporting in Australia led to failing mines. Australia is far from saturating the market, btw. The export leader is Kazakhstan, which is again for geo-strategic reasons

Reserves don't mean anything in this discussion.

>>64918395
>North Korea is
a festering boil on the ass of mankind that needs lancing.

>>64918395
Shut up, norktard

>>64918635
if?