this post was submitted on 30 May 2025
1287 points (98.3% liked)
Political Memes
8304 readers
3169 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What’s the logic behind this statement? Is it just that nukes are bad?
The logic is that if you put the world at risk, there should be consequences for that.
If you want the world to come running when you fall on hard times (and this can hardly be considered that, yet aid comes all the same) then you should give up your weapons of mass destruction.
If there's no consequence for having them, eventually everyone will have them. And then very rapidly nobody will. And that won't be a good day.
Ok. I kind of get your point. It seems like almost any country can put the world at risk though, with or without nukes. Aid isn’t given on how not-powerful a country is but how beneficial it is to the country supplying the aid. For example the us will prop up dictators it hates if it serves their interests. Topple democracies if it helps their interests. Nukes or no nukes it only makes sense. It would be nice if countries were all trying to make the best world to live in, but we aren’t there yet, and I’m sure you know that.