So the small countries exist and if they cannot rely on big countries for protection against nuclear states, then the only way forward for them is to have their own nuclear weapons. Do you like that world better? Does it lower or heighten the risk of unleashing the “end of humanity”?
> Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey to deploy and store
Difference is those weapons are not Belgian to deploy against e.g. Austria whenever anti-Austrian fascist party is in power in Belgium. Example sounds absurd today, but you can use Hungary for example, another country bitter of its lands lost a century ago. That’s basically what the world with nuclear weapons everywhere looks like. Game of chicken against the opponents perceived weak over opportunistic use of century-old grievances.
I don't accept that dichotomy despite I see value in the argument. Since the invention of nuclear bombs, how many countries without nuclear weapons have lost their sovereignty of those surrounding Russia?
Btw if it's either NATO or nuclear bombs, why didn't Finland get nuclear bombs in the last 60 years?
You make a good point. But Finland would develop nukes now if not for the option to join NATO. People are saying that the nonaligned countries didn't use to worry because Russia used to respect the international order, the one where you don't touch borders for no reason, and that illusion has now shattered.
> Btw if it's either NATO or nuclear bombs, why didn't Finland get nuclear bombs in the last 60 years?
Finland is a small country and nukes are very expensive (and hard) to deal with all the way: development, manufacture, deployment, service. The pressure to have your own nukes is low when you consider an attack unlikely, which was the case for Finland for the last 60 years.
Countries that did not feel so safe moved much faster (considering different fates of Mr. Gaddafi and Mr. Kim). But recent Russian actions motivated a lot of its neighbors who were not worried before to spend whatever is needed to make an attack on them prohibitively expensive.
The collective West had way more resolve to respond to the further Russian expansion westward during the Cold War, you can say they were fools risking the end of humanity and maybe so, but it worked better for the stability in Europe than current deference to Russian interest and Americans openly pondering why they need NATO, because woke something something. It is weak, perceived as weak, and acted upon.
As for Finland during the Cold War, not sure if it had a pathway to NATO, same as modern Ukraine, or if the USSR would give it time to develop a bomb. They treaded carefully and forfeited a great deal of their independence.
If Finland doesn't need NATO, then why is Finland now joining NATO after 60 years?
Finland's policy was one of soft appeasement. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has revealed this to be a bad idea, so Finland continuing as it was is no longer a responsible option.
Finland having powerful allies as we move closer to WW3 is well worth celebrating. The only people not celebrating are vatniks and vatnik sympathizers. Polarized indeed.
Yeah however does not want a 3rd world war, billions of lives lost and a destroyed planet, is Putin's agent, sounds legit. Whoever is a warmonger celebrating for going towards that direction is fan of democracy and liberalism, somehow.
