> it will become clear to the world that only nuclear weapons can defend a country from having their land grabbed by Russia and other countries
That cat's out of the bag, it has been common wisdom for decades that countries with nukes don't get invaded and other deterrents aren't nearly as effective or economical. Mutually assured destruction is one of the biggest reasons the world's been so peaceful recently. No major wars, just various nuclear powers occasionally invading various non-nuclear powers. MAD is mad effective.
> That cat's out of the bag, it has been common wisdom for decades that countries with nukes don't get invaded and other deterrents aren't nearly as effective or economical. Mutually assured destruction is one of the biggest reasons the world's been so peaceful recently. No major wars, just various nuclear powers occasionally invading various non-nuclear powers. MAD is mad effective.
Yes but you can still defeat a state that has nuclear weapons when they invade.
If you try and change that that rhetoric by saying you can also only defend yourself when you have nuclear weapons then the entire dynamic changes and a lot more countries will start active nuclear weapons programs.
> Yes but you can still defeat a state that has nuclear weapons when they invade.
That's not at all clear in this case.
EDIT: ... because they may be willing to use nukes when they realize they're losing. I think that explains why the West is not really going crazy about defending Ukraine... the West could do a hell of a lot more if it really wanted to, but maybe doing that would trigger desperate reactions from Russia as they've made it clear already many times that for them, losing this war is an "existential" threat (same words Ukrainians are using).
...and yet, none of them had the bomb to drop on anyone else. Literally a case of a bomb in hand is worth infinite (unrealized) in the bush. Realpolitik runs on what you can do now.
What do you not understand about the human condition?
We are energy/cost optimizers. We want to achieve resolutions of conflict as cheap, and as quickly as possible, i.e. with minimal cost.
We made a bomb. Arguably the biggest bomb there had been any indication of anyone having gotten working before.
Truman was looking at war projections of costs to invade Japan. Then he got the papers that said we could make an entire city disappear with 1 plane, and one bomb.
Do you really think it would have worked out any different for anyone else?
I say: No. It wouldn't have, because using it as soon as you got it is just human nature.
> Why roll the dice when having nuclear weapons protects you from being invaded in the first place?
This how I feel a lot more countries will start feeling if Ukraine doesn't win or Russia successfully uses their nuclear blackmail to win or get concessions in the war.
Wow a nuclear armed superpower invading a country, that's sure a sea-change for the world /s
Look at what is happening in the world. Country after country standing up and saying they will continue to have their own relations with Russia, they see right through the hypocrisy of the west.
That cat's out of the bag, it has been common wisdom for decades that countries with nukes don't get invaded and other deterrents aren't nearly as effective or economical. Mutually assured destruction is one of the biggest reasons the world's been so peaceful recently. No major wars, just various nuclear powers occasionally invading various non-nuclear powers. MAD is mad effective.