There is the fourth option that america has really invested in SEAD/DEAD capabilities and Venezuelan air defenses were neutralized by large numbers of American stealth aircraft. Then as other uses have pointed out hitting a heli with a manpad isn’t easy when the helis are taking precautions and actively looking for anti-air teams.
100% the only way to guarantee sovereignty is nukes. Just look at the DPRK, they’ve been on America’s shitlist for decades & haven’t been attacked to the same extent as others like Libya, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Venezuela, etc
The third and fourth points are just hand-wavey aren’t they? ‘Russia would have invaded Ukraine anyways’ is rich coming from them - RWN also though Russia wasn’t going to invade at all back in the day. Moreover, what sort of counter-factual is ‘the empire just doesn’t care all that much about North Korea’? Are we going to say that about every country between Cuba and Iran until the US actually goes ahead and escalates its wars against them?
If Ukraine losing a fourth of its territory isn’t existential enough to raise the risk of nuclear war then, well, at that point you might as well argue that nukes are useless actually and nobody is ever gonna fire one. I for one thing it is much more convincing to argue that Israel - backed by the US - did not feel existentially threatened by Iran and that neither did India or Pakistan in their small war.
The horrifying reality is that nukes are just another tool in an arsenal of war and not a magic game over device that is too evil to use. It is not a magical deterrent and the empires are more than willing to shoulder a little nuclear hellfire to achieve their goals.
The vast majority of nations in the periphery cannot afford a nuclear weapons programme, it’s just not an option for not countries economically unless you’re prepared to spend 25%+ of GDP on the military, which can also lead to collapse. Advanced economies like Japan, South Korea, Germany can easily obtain nuclear weapons with minimal economic sacrifice. Nuclear proliferation does not benefit the periphery at all.
I see a lot of comparisons to Korea, but another major factor for their continued existence isnt the nukes, like Cuba they just arnt that important of a market or resource hub to pilfer. Both Iraq and Venezuela have a lot more people and a lot more resources to steal away. Iran -> Columbia -> Mexico are likely to be the next on the chopping block and all of which do not stand a chance without another major world power intervening in their stake. We’re back in the multipolar world and as such the peripheral governments have to be more subservient than they ever were before when the US was really the only player. Of course, Russia is too busy in Ukraine and China will not invest in a foreign policy of opposing US hegemony.
There is the fourth option that america has really invested in SEAD/DEAD capabilities and Venezuelan air defenses were neutralized by large numbers of American stealth aircraft. Then as other uses have pointed out hitting a heli with a manpad isn’t easy when the helis are taking precautions and actively looking for anti-air teams.
100% the only way to guarantee sovereignty is nukes. Just look at the DPRK, they’ve been on America’s shitlist for decades & haven’t been attacked to the same extent as others like Libya, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Venezuela, etc
Mark Ames talked about this in the latest RWN. His main counterpoints:
Anyway if you want to listen for yourself, here is the episode:
https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-vua6p-29edd699
The third and fourth points are just hand-wavey aren’t they? ‘Russia would have invaded Ukraine anyways’ is rich coming from them - RWN also though Russia wasn’t going to invade at all back in the day. Moreover, what sort of counter-factual is ‘the empire just doesn’t care all that much about North Korea’? Are we going to say that about every country between Cuba and Iran until the US actually goes ahead and escalates its wars against them?
If Ukraine losing a fourth of its territory isn’t existential enough to raise the risk of nuclear war then, well, at that point you might as well argue that nukes are useless actually and nobody is ever gonna fire one. I for one thing it is much more convincing to argue that Israel - backed by the US - did not feel existentially threatened by Iran and that neither did India or Pakistan in their small war.
The horrifying reality is that nukes are just another tool in an arsenal of war and not a magic game over device that is too evil to use. It is not a magical deterrent and the empires are more than willing to shoulder a little nuclear hellfire to achieve their goals.
When empire is 4 businesses in a trench coat, and those businesses get to make the call, they can protect themselves from the fallout.
The vast majority of nations in the periphery cannot afford a nuclear weapons programme, it’s just not an option for not countries economically unless you’re prepared to spend 25%+ of GDP on the military, which can also lead to collapse. Advanced economies like Japan, South Korea, Germany can easily obtain nuclear weapons with minimal economic sacrifice. Nuclear proliferation does not benefit the periphery at all.
I see a lot of comparisons to Korea, but another major factor for their continued existence isnt the nukes, like Cuba they just arnt that important of a market or resource hub to pilfer. Both Iraq and Venezuela have a lot more people and a lot more resources to steal away. Iran -> Columbia -> Mexico are likely to be the next on the chopping block and all of which do not stand a chance without another major world power intervening in their stake. We’re back in the multipolar world and as such the peripheral governments have to be more subservient than they ever were before when the US was really the only player. Of course, Russia is too busy in Ukraine and China will not invest in a foreign policy of opposing US hegemony.