“A world without nuclear weapons is totally possible,” says @Emma_Pike_, a nuclear disarmament consultant and activist. She shared her thoughts with Times Opinion on TikTok: nyti.ms/49buYeZ
This is not a serious presentation and the NYT is being quite imbecilic in featuring this lala-land story about nuclear disarmament. In the real world, the biggest nuclear-armed state, Russia, is using nuclear threats to enhance a massive war of aggression in the heart of Europe, and more war and wider war is likely. Our governments in Europe talk about it literally all the time now. We are, many believe, in a pre-war period. At the same time, the world's rising superpower challenger, China, is massively expanding its nuclear weapons capabilities. In South Asia, India is also expanding its nuclear capabilities with longer-range and more sophisticated delivery systems so that it can be sure it can deter China. And in the Middle East, you can bet that Israel feels more vindicated than ever before for having developed its own nuclear deterrent. Back to Europe, France's nuclear arsenal is more valuable than it has been in decades as a means of deterring Russia from further aggression in Europe. As the United States becomes an increasingly unreliable ally and partner to others (look at your Congress betraying Ukraine by cutting off aid), and as revisionist challenges multiply all over the world, states across the world are reconsidering their security policies. It is plausible, in these circumstances, that we will see: - a resumption of nuclear testing and thus the end of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - the emergence of new nuclear-armed states In this context, the last person that any government is going to listen to is an extremely young American activist with no government experience and no clear expertise in matters of defence policy or security policy. I add the nationality of the activist to my reaction because American voices on matters of nuclear policy are the least credible they've been in a long time, given the global developments I've described above. That is true, by the way, even of very expert American colleagues: You can't tell countries that are getting literally butchered, or who face a serious prospect of being attacked, not to acquire nuclear weapons when your own country has the 2nd strongest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world.
@EHunterChristie @nytopinion @Emma_Pike_ You are not yet asking if this is a Kremlin-backed psyop. We already know the NYT is infiltrated by Kremlin-friendly, maybe on the payroll editors. We know she advocated against weapons to Ukraine last year. Four years ago, she was a grade school teacher ...
@EHunterChristie @nytopinion @Emma_Pike_ Very well said. Nuclear proliferation and expansion clearly ongoing and soon to escalate.
@EHunterChristie @nytopinion @Emma_Pike_ Most of your points about deterrence and the current state of geopolitics are well said. However, you presumed that she meant that she meant immediately disarming - she did not. You also used the absurd “Americans can’t talk” trope
@EHunterChristie @nytopinion @Emma_Pike_ You didn’t even mention Iran or N Korea
@EHunterChristie @MalcolmNance @nytopinion @Emma_Pike_ Agreed, The US got Ukraine to give up nukes it had (but didn't have launch codes for) in exchange for recognition of Sovereignty (which Russia hasn't honored) & Security (RU attacked & US didn't defend). If UKR had deliverable nukes, no war. Why wouldn't countries want nukes?