6 ms·

As a European, I am always nervous about nukes. American nukes specifically. And not so much about Trump, who is a buffoon but doesn't actually want to get too

by pluma 10y ago

As a European, I am always nervous about nukes. American nukes specifically. And not so much about Trump, who is a buffoon but doesn't actually want to get too involved in messy foreign politics, but Clinton, who as a Secretary of State has already proven to be another warmonger. The US has had a blasé attitude to nuclear weapons ever since the start of the Cold War. The majority of situations where we have come close to global thermonuclear war involved careless US behaviour. The US is the only nation in the history of mankind to have used nuclear weapons at all. If there will ever be a nuclear war, the US is the most likely country to make it happen. Sure, some deranged dictator might fling a single nuclear missile somewhere at some point (and it will probably be intercepted before it can do any real damage) but if I had to bet on a country to end the world as we know it, all my money would be on the US.

jacquesm 10y ago
> The majority of situations where we have come close to global thermonuclear war involved careless US behaviour. That may simply be a case of not having the same level of disclosure for the different countries involved.
- oneloop 10y ago
  Is the US known for its transparency?
  - ddaygold 10y ago
    In comparison to the Soviet Union? Yes, the US was more transparent than the Soviet Union.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      It has also a much louder and powerful media empire, so its opinions are over represented in the world stage. The media is not objective, and is mostly pro-US.
oneloop 10y ago
Please don't buy this idea that Trump is just an innocent buffoon. The guy is genuinely dangerous. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Yet the only one who sent US troops in war and partly responsible for the power vacuum which allowed ISIS to gain power is Clinton. Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    You meant "Trump" in your last sentence?
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Yes sorry too late to change
  - oneloop 10y ago
    My issue with Trump is how ignorant he seems to be about everything he's asked. You might say that Clinton is dangerous, but she's not stupid. Trump IS very stupid. Also, what is this "power vacuum"that you're talking about? What are you trying to say, that if Obama was militarily more aggressive, there would be less ISIS? Weren't you just before concerned about Clinton wanting war? You can't have both.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      The power vacuum comes from topping Saddam Hussein for geopolitical reasons. Opportunistic use of the September 11 attacks to open up a new era of wild-wild-west politics, where the world is up for grabs. And we wonder that Russia feels emboldened to push its geopolitical interests? Russia needs to do that, or risk being wiped out from the world stage by an extremely aggressive US.
wil421 10y ago
The US and Russia are about even in the times where a nuclear war was possible.[1] I'd argue that Russia has come closer, a submarine was going to arm and fire missles but the second in command refused to give consent. There was another time where Russia's missle defense system showed an incoming attack. Nuclear weapons will never be used in our lifetime by a stable country. They serve only as a deterrent, don't invade me or I'll nuke you. The biggest chance is if an armed weapon falls into the hands of a bad actor. It's also worrisome what will happen to Russia if Putin dies without a successor. It's going to get closer to war if Russia keeps annexing Europe. [1]http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-calls http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-c...
- pluma 10y ago
  True, but as far as I know most incidents of the USSR coming close to a nuclear strike were accidents or technical glitches. IMO it's incredibly unlikely the USSR would have had actually used nuclear weapons precisely because the military had such an aversion to actually using it. OTOH incidents like Able Archer demonstrate exactly the kind of carelessness I'm talking about: that anyone was surprised the USSR could have mistaken a realistic, unannounced, off-schedule "simulation" near their borders for the real thing is idiotic. This kind of posturing is extremely dangerous and the US is still doing it today. Sure, Russia and other "bad actors" are doing similar things, but the US is often going further (except for maybe the recent antics by North Korea -- which everybody expects to do ridiculously crazy things to begin with because they're a hereditary dictatorship, not a democratic republic). That said, nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. Unless you're a sociopathic caveman, condemning all of humanity to death just because your nation state's integrity is at risk is an unimaginable atrocity. It's the ultimate war crime. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is holding all of mankind (alive and future) hostage -- it's frankly disgusting. Not that anyone would be able to or interested in actually having a meaningful war with the US. We're well past the age of rolling into other people's countries with tanks and planting down a flag. A war between Russia and the US would ruin both countries' economies and neither party would come out on top -- even if the US didn't have a massive army (or Russia didn't have a massive territory). My biggest gripe wrt US vs Russia is actually that Russia and China both have an official No-First-Use policy but the US explicitly reserves the right to a nuclear first strike (not even paying lip service as a sign of good will -- because let's face it: if Russia or China violates their NFU policy against the US it's irrelevant anyway). And while Russia has been a strong proponent of nuclear disarmament since the final years of the USSR, the US has been quite the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament
xlm1717 10y ago
This is why I roll my eyes every time Hillary tries to use nuclear weapons for scaremongering. Nobody, absolutely nobody wants to use nukes. Hillary needs to get realistic here.

by pluma 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago

> The majority of situations where we have come close to global thermonuclear war involved careless US behaviour. That may simply be a case of not having the same level of disclosure for the different countries involved.

oneloop 10y ago
Is the US known for its transparency?
- ddaygold 10y ago
  In comparison to the Soviet Union? Yes, the US was more transparent than the Soviet Union.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    It has also a much louder and powerful media empire, so its opinions are over represented in the world stage. The media is not objective, and is mostly pro-US.

oneloop 10y ago

Please don't buy this idea that Trump is just an innocent buffoon. The guy is genuinely dangerous. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc

ThomPete 10y ago
Yet the only one who sent US troops in war and partly responsible for the power vacuum which allowed ISIS to gain power is Clinton. Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  You meant "Trump" in your last sentence?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Yes sorry too late to change
- oneloop 10y ago
  My issue with Trump is how ignorant he seems to be about everything he's asked. You might say that Clinton is dangerous, but she's not stupid. Trump IS very stupid. Also, what is this "power vacuum"that you're talking about? What are you trying to say, that if Obama was militarily more aggressive, there would be less ISIS? Weren't you just before concerned about Clinton wanting war? You can't have both.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    The power vacuum comes from topping Saddam Hussein for geopolitical reasons. Opportunistic use of the September 11 attacks to open up a new era of wild-wild-west politics, where the world is up for grabs. And we wonder that Russia feels emboldened to push its geopolitical interests? Russia needs to do that, or risk being wiped out from the world stage by an extremely aggressive US.

wil421 10y ago

The US and Russia are about even in the times where a nuclear war was possible.[1] I'd argue that Russia has come closer, a submarine was going to arm and fire missles but the second in command refused to give consent. There was another time where Russia's missle defense system showed an incoming attack. Nuclear weapons will never be used in our lifetime by a stable country. They serve only as a deterrent, don't invade me or I'll nuke you. The biggest chance is if an armed weapon falls into the hands of a bad actor. It's also worrisome what will happen to Russia if Putin dies without a successor. It's going to get closer to war if Russia keeps annexing Europe. [1]http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-calls http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-c...

pluma 10y ago
True, but as far as I know most incidents of the USSR coming close to a nuclear strike were accidents or technical glitches. IMO it's incredibly unlikely the USSR would have had actually used nuclear weapons precisely because the military had such an aversion to actually using it. OTOH incidents like Able Archer demonstrate exactly the kind of carelessness I'm talking about: that anyone was surprised the USSR could have mistaken a realistic, unannounced, off-schedule "simulation" near their borders for the real thing is idiotic. This kind of posturing is extremely dangerous and the US is still doing it today. Sure, Russia and other "bad actors" are doing similar things, but the US is often going further (except for maybe the recent antics by North Korea -- which everybody expects to do ridiculously crazy things to begin with because they're a hereditary dictatorship, not a democratic republic). That said, nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. Unless you're a sociopathic caveman, condemning all of humanity to death just because your nation state's integrity is at risk is an unimaginable atrocity. It's the ultimate war crime. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is holding all of mankind (alive and future) hostage -- it's frankly disgusting. Not that anyone would be able to or interested in actually having a meaningful war with the US. We're well past the age of rolling into other people's countries with tanks and planting down a flag. A war between Russia and the US would ruin both countries' economies and neither party would come out on top -- even if the US didn't have a massive army (or Russia didn't have a massive territory). My biggest gripe wrt US vs Russia is actually that Russia and China both have an official No-First-Use policy but the US explicitly reserves the right to a nuclear first strike (not even paying lip service as a sign of good will -- because let's face it: if Russia or China violates their NFU policy against the US it's irrelevant anyway). And while Russia has been a strong proponent of nuclear disarmament since the final years of the USSR, the US has been quite the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament

xlm1717 10y ago

This is why I roll my eyes every time Hillary tries to use nuclear weapons for scaremongering. Nobody, absolutely nobody wants to use nukes. Hillary needs to get realistic here.