Every country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons

Every country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tlatelolco
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–Guatemala_conflict
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201st_Fighter_Squadron_(Mexico)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No thanks

There should only be one country.

There should be no countries

you can't trust that every country will institute a no first-use policy like all the others have

And even of these nations it's iffy if ones like Russia or North Korea, much less Pakistan or Israel would keep to it.

agree. Mexico with thermonuclear weapon is a fantastic idea

Nukes aren't real pal.

t. only country who used nukes on other country

>

You would nuke Afghan if you can

What point are you trying to make? Mexico has literally never attacked another country for any reason. Stupid chink.

We are unironically very strict pacifists, Mexico has never fought a war of aggression.

"The Treaty of Tlatelolco is the conventional name given to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean."
"The Mexican diplomat Alfonso García Robles received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1982 for his efforts in promoting the treaty.[9]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tlatelolco

Daily reminder onle one country used nukes to kill people. Civilian people.

Fuck you beaner
i'm just scared of the possibility of your nuclear weapon being sold in a black market or in the hand of cartel

Try googling just how many nukes both the USA and the USSR have "lost" during their history.

We could build one in a couple of years if we fucking want it
But our policy involves the earth to be inhabitable so we choose not to

Stupid chink

Your country is shittier than ours even when we are stuck in a bloody internal war
Please fuck off

>Mexico has never attacked ANOTHER country
Kek

Turn off the proxy burger

It hasn't

>They dont know that Finland is a nuclear power

...

Kinda did that to Guatemala to retrieve what Chiapas saw as its rightful border, but Mexican soldiers pretty much marched unopposed and Guatemala gave Mexico most of the demands presented to them

Dios mio!

nukes are usless af in modern world

That time Guatemala sent its troops into Mexico, and our army didn't respond, precisely to prevent war. Chiapas voted to stay the same way Guatemala did to leave, and we also didn't oppose that. The second time Guatemala attacked us we also didn't do anything.

African shitholes would nuke each other every 5 years

2nd time I believe we were about to hit back, but diplomacy first worked pretty gud

Good. They have too many children

Fact: If Ukraine didn't demolish its nukes it would be better off than Russia

yes, everyone stockpile lots and lots of nukes, don't stop, get as many as you can! and don't forget your good friend the Aussie who generously sold you the uranium at a fair price when you're enjoying total immunity from international threats

Thanks for the info General Armchair.

>all african countries with nukes
that would be a fucking nightmare

You sure about that? you fucking spics.
having high different between rich and poor.
sucking american cock for 200 years can raise anybody GDP some people just have dignity.

>America stole mah land
>Mexico strong
>all 'mericans fault
>cross border to US illegally

pathetic

They would probably try to eat the fissile material from bombs or some other stupid shit like that.

Guatemalans did in fact attack us back in the 1950's, we were about to bomb them back into the stone age when Washington intervened.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–Guatemala_conflict

I wouldn't give much credence to their near hysterical biased view on history, Central Americas fought each other on the flimsiest of pretexts for much of their history. Chiapas voted to join Mexico and Soconusco was its territory, technically not able to declare independence on its own, it never formed itself into a legitimate state. More importantly it's a large part of the coastline of Chiapas which it would've been detrimental for the state to lose, so Mexico asserted itself, and it did so also on territories Guatemala claimed in the Peten and in part of what is today Campeche.

Understand these were claims Guatemala made on what were at the time ill defined borders, not territories it in any way owned, controlled or settled by them, there's no lesser merit to the claims made by Mexico, history was simply we were in the better position to mantain those territories. Aggressive as it may look in their history we were simply protecting our rights. And no war was fought, Mexico simply took posession of what it considered belonged to it and if we're talking rights over territory Soconusco was an Aztec outpost and the birthplace of the Olmecs. It awlays was Mexican soil.

Why are you so jealous?
You were a puppet state of Japan, so technically, you have lost a war against us.
Go express your insecurities somewhere else

>sucking american cock for 200 years
This is evidently false, Mexico mantained friendly relations with the US but it was up until the 1990's basically unconnected in terms of trade, they were the historic enemy of our nation.

What did Mexicans get in exchange for signing NAFTA in 1994? The minimum wage in Mexico lost 70% of its purchasing power and Americans destroyed our subsistence farmers who were able to compete with their mechanized highly subsidized agriculture. Learn your history before commenting on matters you do not understand, whatever Trump's rethoric Mexico is worse off for having lost so much of its population and the US benefited enormously through exploiting undocumented workers and using them to add to its consumer base. If you can't understand the very simple fact migration grows a country's economy, and that it is harmful for origin countries, you may have bought into the alternate world of facts spun by the American right.

The one in which despite solid evidence to the contrary migrants are criminals and somehow magically abuse social programs they can't legally access, because illiterate Mexican farmers are apparently more sophisticated than US bureaucracy.

More to the point, NAFTa accomplished a long pursued American foreign policy objective in that it made an ally of what was a nominally socialist country for much of the 20th century. I'm not being offensive to you, I'm providing facts, migartion stopped almost a decade ago and I will not fault Chicanos because they weren't patriotic enough to watch their children starve in their own land.

when did mexico fight france?

*who were not able to compete
I must add to this, we're talking something close to 20 million farmers who lost their livelyhood to American competition.

Twice actually
First Pastry war, some cheff complains to the French that some mexican army officers damaged his shop in Mexico city, so the French attacked in order to force Mexico to pay, at the end the Brits mediated the peace and Mexico payed kinda
2nd time, using same pretext of being behind on debt payment they invade and attempt to install a puppet monarchy initially they got Britain and Spain on board, but when they saw the French intentions they left with a promise from Mexico to eventually some day pay, but the republicans eventually won the upper hand, France saw heavy losses, and eventually withdrew, their puppet regime was dissolved

Would Russia invade Ukraine if it still had nukes?

Moctezuma here is right
NAFTA and similar trade agreements are good for the international business elite and bad for vulnerable populations
Mexico would be better off if Clinton had never existed

>Mexico in ww2
you mean this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201st_Fighter_Squadron_(Mexico)
>kek

except north korea

Kek, wjhich time? The most well known conflict was Napoleon III's invasion which, aided by Mexican monarchists, resulted in the inauguration of Maximilian of Habsburg as sovereign of the Second Mexican Empire, the stated purpose of the French was to collect foreign debt owed by Mexico but they also had ambitions to counterbalance the United States which is the reason they promoted the term Latin American to try and instill a sense of brotherhood with Latin peoples in Europe (namely them) in a join common cause against Anglos on both sides of the Atlantic. The war lasted for a decade and apart from the French, Austrian and Belgian mercenaries were involved, these were later abandoned in Mexico and joined into the population.

civilians should be allowed recreational nukes

We were more logistical allies
Our oil moved the British and american efforts
Our farmers feed the troops
Our small air force and navy escorted cargo ships as far as we c ould
That small squadron was symbolic only and very effective
For what we got out of the war, low casualties, total reparation for our lost ships and full sovereignty for our natural resources, previously in private hands
And the fact remains, we were a belligerent, we never went puppet state mode, out country never went defunct
Go fight some else's war again
But go ahead discuss this

No need to be mad at being stupid, ladyboy

Every nuclear weapon should have a country.

this a beautiful post, countryman

Some did try to stop NAFTA

Try reading the article you quoted, Mexicans served with honor. Our country's most important contribution to the war effort was resources, Mexico provided much of the oil used by the British, and labor as well, migration to the US got started precissely because Mexicans were brought in to work agricultural jobs vacated by enlisted Americans, some Mexicans even joined the US armed forces and fought under their flag.

>Tlatelolco

Is that the only part of Mexico where good things happen?

...

Why are you always posting about Diaz Ordaz?

Good points. polite and well informed.
Mexico does indeed have a chance to be a powerful nation in its own right.
>said the spics
>isn't prostitution your main employment after maid?

Because he could've saved you from yourselves if you just gave him (more of) a chance

No need to keep embarrassing yourself, little ladyfriend

Save from what? Another chance to what? Nothing ever happened to him despite him being a god damn monster.

The other Mexianon is right you have a weird obsession with that man. Anyway what you may not know is it was echeverria in power in 1968, Díaz Ordaz was often crippled by a psychiatric disorder, not to absolve him of responsibility, but he was paranoid and delusional.

yeah i guess so. spic

Aren't you in the same tier as Mexico on that map?

Are you at war?
Because we are, murders are counted even if they are a kill by the armed forces

that's burma

lol just piss the fuck off, ladyboy

kind of
>Muslim

Oh yeah, the Indochina peninsula is a bit confusing for those of us unfamiliar with your region of the world, my bad.

Still man, chill, what's with all the hate?

No. go back to pick chilli or something
fucking beaner

nah thats ok.
Burma is in legit civil war since 1948 poor bastard.
just a bantz man nothing serious.

My true enemy is Malaysia

>you have a weird obsession with that man

Mexican (you)s are the most valuable currency on this board. Unless its
>kys

is this a mexican meme or is it one particularly salty aztec?