>

I mean north korea is also a nuclear power!
Nuclear power doesn't position yourself as a robust economy
What does a nuclear weapon have to do with disastrous economic decisions? If anything it’s an expensive saber that you rattle too much. We need a better economic policy than war. >

Bhutto said “we will eat grass if we have to make a nuclear bomb”
I guess it came true
edit: even >

Came here to say this one,  you a Hitchens fan lol? >

No man, never got around to it,  iam more of a fiction guy >

Maybe they should not have invested all those resources into nuclear weapons… >

Rumour is that Saudi Arabia paid for half of the R+D costs.  In return for 6 nukes, to be stored in Pakistan but which can be flown to them in hours. >

So now there’s a family with nukes. Great. >

I mean there is also NATO where nuclear members deploy their nukes on the soil of non-nuclear members. So this isn't exactly new >

But in the west and nato they are not often in control by a single psychopathic ruling family. >

Fair enough but also USSR put their nukes on Cuba and Russia is also planning to deploy nukes in Belarus. Sharing the "Nuclear umbrella" is more common than people realize. >

Nukes did not stay in Cuba. That was what the whole Cuban missile crisis was about.  Putting nukes in Belarus doesn’t do much since they had nukes before the Soviet broke up. Land based nukes are easy targets. This is why American  nuke silos are in the Midwest. Subs and carriers carry the other nukes.