> Maybe one less nuclear power isn't a bad thing?

Let Russia de arm first. They are the ones using their nukes as cover to steal land from other countries.

The only reason nuclear weapons are a thing is because of imperialism. Stay in your fucking borders and nobody gives a shit.

Russia is the reason why the west has nuclear weapons, and now the fascist US is reviving its imperial ambitions, with threats of annexation to Panama, Greenland, Canada, and Palestine. Sounds to me like the entire fucking world should be scrambling to become a nuclear power.

I believe the idea is that your submarines aren't vulnerable to a first strike, since any competent government will figure out where your land based silos are.

EDIT: Oh I see you're saying in general they shouldn't have nukes. I mean, I don't like that anyone has them but I get why they do

They face a nuclear armed, rogue military power,intent on invading and occupying other weaker nations. I think they need a stick to deter that particular nation from doing anything silly to them.

There's only one country that's given up nuclear weapons, and that was due to racism. Even if Britain was no longer given the missiles, can you really see the country not developing an alternative delivery mechanism?

With 'only one country', I assume you refer to South Africa. Are you aware that the ANC itself approved of nuclear disarmament?

If you look at the Budapest Memorandum, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine also voluntarily gave up their nuclear arsenals by becoming a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in exchange for security guarantees.

Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, and the last 12 years are a testament to how bad of a mistake that was.

Nah you first!