US warns Australia against joining treaty banning nuclear weapons

originally posted by: ToneDeaf

U.s. has nuclear bombs, it has not deterred
the war in Ukraine what's so ever.

US nuclear weapons don't exist to protect Ukraine, we have them to protect the US. If Ukraine had kept their nuclear weapons, it might have been a deterrent. For instance, US gave Israel nuclear weapons, and no one has tried to invade them since.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure why your obsession with male genitalia factors in, but I think my original suggestion stands. Anyone who wants to give up their weapons and hope for the best is welcome to do so. Let politicians and law enforcement lead the way.

And if you consider Afghanistan winners, then I think the term must have been redefined when I wasn't looking. If an armed gang broke into my house, killed and tortured family members, set up a drug lab, stole my property, destroyed my property, and did that for a decade before leaving out of boredom, I wouldn't feel like a winner.

But I do think Australia should recognize the truth in your words. US nuclear weapons didn't stop an invasion of Ukraine, they probably won't stop an invasion of Australia. Australian nuclear weapons might.

Only a fool would believe that
there are 'winners' in a nuclear war.

Winners historically are the
ones who prove to be the
"better" in virtue . . .
By history, Jesus rose above
the materialistic insanity,
teaching us that virtue is what wins.
not bombing each other as psychopaths would.
Stay classy people.

That's like trying to guarantee my house will never be robbed or myself assaulted by making said house a gun free zone and plopping a sign in the yard

originally posted by: Freeborn
. . . but I sincerely hope Australia tell the US to go # itself:
no country should be able to dictate another countries policy on anything.
Maybe if we address that problem
it will immediately eliminate the need for nuclear weapons....

^ ^ This

Also meddling, provocateurs are a major problem,
something that needs to be illuminated.

__________________________

Let's be honest. Is declaring you're nuke-free as a nation with nuclear capabilities trustworthy? If you answered yes, your nation is in danger.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
That's like trying to guarantee my house will never be robbed or myself assaulted by making said house a gun free zone and plopping a sign in the yard

Ahh no, it isn't. A gun is not a nuclear weapon. Next...

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
That's like trying to guarantee my house will never be robbed or myself assaulted by making said house a gun free zone and plopping a sign in the yard

Ahh no, it isn't. A gun is not a nuclear weapon. Next...

I'm amused and saddened by the fact you don't seem to understand analogies

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Oh I understand analogies, but I tend to favor apples to apples analogies, not apples to oranges.

Apple:
Nuclear annihilation of a global species, and potentially everything except for cockroaches.

Orange:
Defense of a single private property.

You just gotta do better, that's all.

There are those that will never understand, that
virtue is what creates the right side of history,
not the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
They are the same ones that only learn the hard way.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

The situation reflects the Australian government creating a conflict between defence and foreign policy interests. Australia and New Zealand exist under the U.S. nuclear weapons deterrent umbrella. Although it needs to be clarified which countries Australia is looking to improve diplomatic ties with in this instance. They are also, having inherited AUKUS and the nuclear-powered submarine project from the Morrison Government, Albanese and co desire to undo aspects of that government's foreign policy for the sake of political opposition.

a reply to: nickyw

I was thinking about the future of joint Australian shipyards to maintain and overhaul the RAN, RN and USN's nuclear-powered submarines. Specifically, attack (SSN) submarines and their conventional weapons systems won't pose any issues. But USN and RN's ballistic missile submarines offer two potential complications. First is the potential to remove and store nuclear weapons in Australia. Second, another consideration is the classified nature of the onboard ballistic missile compartments and other sensitive design details.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
US gave Israel nuclear weapons . . .

And how do you know this ?
Do tell ,
please us more mnky:


Anyhow,
Lets cut to the chase.
Globalistic-colonial expansionists need to
They are the real reason behind wars.

The reason 'western' ideology such as televangelism,
zionistic expansionism, deluded white 'entitlement',
uses Fear-propaganda is to to proliferate wars ,
another weapon -Fear.
Fear mongering is an excuse for expansionism
Those brain washed,
are too dumb to see that sh@t as that,
always flies back to them.
No matter the lies, no matter
the propaganda, no matter the brain
washing and gas lighting . . .
We All can see the difference between the
right side of history and the wrong side of history,
evil deeds done for the greed of expansionism.
The true winners will
ALWAYS BE those that stand for virtue.


_________________________

a reply to: ToneDeaf

Yeah, no, I'd like to avoid any extended stays at US or Israeli torture camps. So I'll keep that info to myself.

As to the real reason behind all wars, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll continue to believe that the driving force behind most, if not all wars, are the bankers. They literally profit from every war, financing both sides by creating money out of thin air and charging interest for it. Even the "winners" are put into debt slavery.

Eliminating nukes won't end wars, there have been wars long before nukes existed. But if countries had to pay for wars with silver and gold today, no one would be able to afford to go to war.