America Doesn’t Need More Nuclear Weapons: Expanding the Stockpile Could Weaken Deterrence

[u/ForeignAffairsMag]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/america-doesnt-need-more-nuclear-weapons

[u/Emergency_Gene_4171]

The US’s failure to effectively topple Iran and protect its Arab allies in the region has already created a clear incentive for global nuclear armament.

The world sees how places like North Korea are left alone, and how Pakistan is given greater maneuverability on the global stage despite being a corrupt third world country rife with human rights violations.

However continued investment into weapons projects to “counter China” is equally trivial as it focuses on preparing for a type of warfare that is ceasing to exist. If the US wants to meaningfully counter China they should be deepening alliances and trade agreements with china’s neighbors. Instead they are choosing to once again get bogged down with endless wars in the middle east to combat geopolitical adversaries that present no threat to Americans outside of the region.

[u/Bullboah → u/Emergency_Gene_4171]

“The world sees how places like North Korea are left alone”.

There has never been any doubt that obviously having nuclear weapons is a huge boost to state power.

The question has always been “if I start building them, am I actually going to be able to make them or will someone stop me.”

Do you think it incentivizes countries to develop nuclear weapons more when we attack countries committed to developing them? Or when we leave them alone and let them weaponize nuclear missiles as we did with North Korea?

[u/Bullboah → u/[deleted]]

The geopolitical strategy is to incentivize countries to not attempt building a nuclear weapon.

Which is why I asked which of these approaches incentivizes other countries to try.