4 ms·

According to the US President, the world is at risk of a nuclear “Armageddon”[0]. [0] https://apnews.com/article/biden-nuclear-risk-1d0f1e40cff3a92c662c57f274c

by vnchr 4y ago

According to the US President, the world is at risk of a nuclear “Armageddon”[0]. [0] https://apnews.com/article/biden-nuclear-risk-1d0f1e40cff3a92c662c57f274ce0e25 https://apnews.com/article/biden-nuclear-risk-1d0f1e40cff3a9...

kube-system 4y ago
That’s been the case since the beginning of the Cold War.
- froggertoaster 4y ago
  Exactly. The president can say that, but it doesn't mean that it means anything.
sacrosancty 4y ago
Kind of ironic coming from the person who would be personally creating the armageddon. How about just don't do it and it won't happen?
- sidlls 4y ago
  Kinda relies on the other parties also not doing it.
- irrational 4y ago
  Do you really think the US President would shoot first? Or, are you saying that if someone else launches first, we should just take it and not retaliate?
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    > Do you really think the US President would shoot first? There’s another option. The US making another country so fearful of regime change or destruction that they fire first. And the US has repeatedly attempted and accomplished regime change, several times resulting in the death of the former leader of the country. Also, yes. The US would fire first if it were losing a conventional war, which of course would be unlikely in the next few decades. We’ve already seen that the US did use nukes to avoid losses invading the Japanese mainland.
    - denkmoon 4y ago
      The US has accomplished regime change in weak (politically unstable) non-nuclear countries. The only threat of regime change Russia faces is internal. The idea that the US would use nuclear weapons in response to losing a conventional war is not well founded. One would not necessarily consider Vietnam nor Afghanistan as conventional wars, but they were lost, and nuclear strike did not happen. I don't really see any likelihood for the US using nuclear weapons in a _deliberate_ first strike outside of parts of the continental US being invaded and occupied.
      - epicureanideal 4y ago
        > One would not necessarily consider Vietnam nor Afghanistan as conventional wars, but they were lost, and nuclear strike did not happen. The US wasn’t being invaded and didn’t need to continue the war to prevent a future invasion in those cases. Whereas Japan would’ve continued the war and brought it back to the US mainland eventually.
        cyphar 4y ago
        > Whereas Japan would’ve continued the war and brought it back to the US mainland eventually. This is simply ahistoric. Japan was on the brink of loss and everyone knew it (including all of Japan's military and political leaders) -- Japan was already suing for peace long before the bombs were dropped. The main sticking point was the conditions of surrender and the Japanese were deluded (partially by the US, intentionally or not) into thinking Russia could get them more favourable surrender conditions. These delays, combined with the use of the bomb being a foregone conclusion in the minds of the US leadership regardless of Japan's stance and what seems to be at least some wish to show America's might, lead to the bombings. No reputable historian (nor the statements made by several important military figures at the time) could make a credible argument that in 1945, Japan's loss was not already a foregone conclusion irrespective of the bomb, let alone suggesting that Japan would be able to even attempt to invade the US. If the US had explicitly stated they would not try the royal family for war crimes and keep the 帝 (emperor) alive, Japan would've surrendered (this is literally the only important condition they wanted, and it's what the US was planning on doing anyway). If you'd like to watch a very long video explaining the events leading up to the bombings with a very detailed timeline: https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go
  - dylan604 4y ago
    >we should just take it and not retaliate? Clinton made that type of proclamation when he was in office, and the conservatives went nuts about it. It's really the only way to not escalate to total global devastation.
  - poisonarena 4y ago
    they did it before! twice!
    - irrational 4y ago
      I'm pretty sure the Japanese (at Pearl Harbor) and Germans shot first.
      - soheil 4y ago
        irrational: false equivalency nukes <> conventional weapons
        irrational 4y ago
        Why not? We have conventional weapons today that are more destructive than those two nuclear bombs unleashed over Japan. They were quite small bombs by todays standards. You are equally dead no matter what the explosive material is.
        soheil 4y ago
        Lookup No first use doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
- arise 4y ago
  Rhetoric is an essential component of nuclear deterrence. You need to convince the enemy that you have the resolve and capability to retaliate, even if you don't/won't.

by vnchr 4y ago

kube-system 4y ago

That’s been the case since the beginning of the Cold War.

froggertoaster 4y ago
Exactly. The president can say that, but it doesn't mean that it means anything.

sacrosancty 4y ago

Kind of ironic coming from the person who would be personally creating the armageddon. How about just don't do it and it won't happen?

sidlls 4y ago
Kinda relies on the other parties also not doing it.
irrational 4y ago
Do you really think the US President would shoot first? Or, are you saying that if someone else launches first, we should just take it and not retaliate?
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  > Do you really think the US President would shoot first? There’s another option. The US making another country so fearful of regime change or destruction that they fire first. And the US has repeatedly attempted and accomplished regime change, several times resulting in the death of the former leader of the country. Also, yes. The US would fire first if it were losing a conventional war, which of course would be unlikely in the next few decades. We’ve already seen that the US did use nukes to avoid losses invading the Japanese mainland.
  - denkmoon 4y ago
    The US has accomplished regime change in weak (politically unstable) non-nuclear countries. The only threat of regime change Russia faces is internal. The idea that the US would use nuclear weapons in response to losing a conventional war is not well founded. One would not necessarily consider Vietnam nor Afghanistan as conventional wars, but they were lost, and nuclear strike did not happen. I don't really see any likelihood for the US using nuclear weapons in a _deliberate_ first strike outside of parts of the continental US being invaded and occupied.
    - epicureanideal 4y ago
      > One would not necessarily consider Vietnam nor Afghanistan as conventional wars, but they were lost, and nuclear strike did not happen. The US wasn’t being invaded and didn’t need to continue the war to prevent a future invasion in those cases. Whereas Japan would’ve continued the war and brought it back to the US mainland eventually.
      - cyphar 4y ago
        > Whereas Japan would’ve continued the war and brought it back to the US mainland eventually. This is simply ahistoric. Japan was on the brink of loss and everyone knew it (including all of Japan's military and political leaders) -- Japan was already suing for peace long before the bombs were dropped. The main sticking point was the conditions of surrender and the Japanese were deluded (partially by the US, intentionally or not) into thinking Russia could get them more favourable surrender conditions. These delays, combined with the use of the bomb being a foregone conclusion in the minds of the US leadership regardless of Japan's stance and what seems to be at least some wish to show America's might, lead to the bombings. No reputable historian (nor the statements made by several important military figures at the time) could make a credible argument that in 1945, Japan's loss was not already a foregone conclusion irrespective of the bomb, let alone suggesting that Japan would be able to even attempt to invade the US. If the US had explicitly stated they would not try the royal family for war crimes and keep the 帝 (emperor) alive, Japan would've surrendered (this is literally the only important condition they wanted, and it's what the US was planning on doing anyway). If you'd like to watch a very long video explaining the events leading up to the bombings with a very detailed timeline: https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go
- dylan604 4y ago
  >we should just take it and not retaliate? Clinton made that type of proclamation when he was in office, and the conservatives went nuts about it. It's really the only way to not escalate to total global devastation.
- poisonarena 4y ago
  they did it before! twice!
  - irrational 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure the Japanese (at Pearl Harbor) and Germans shot first.
    - soheil 4y ago
      irrational: false equivalency nukes <> conventional weapons
      - irrational 4y ago
        Why not? We have conventional weapons today that are more destructive than those two nuclear bombs unleashed over Japan. They were quite small bombs by todays standards. You are equally dead no matter what the explosive material is.
        soheil 4y ago
        Lookup No first use doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
arise 4y ago
Rhetoric is an essential component of nuclear deterrence. You need to convince the enemy that you have the resolve and capability to retaliate, even if you don't/won't.