5 ms·
It is a bit off-topic, but the Biden admin hasn't done anything like that indeed. In fact, nuclear exchange is self-destruction. No one is stupid enough to do t
by exceptione 3y ago
It is a bit off-topic, but the Biden admin hasn't done anything like that indeed. In fact, nuclear exchange is self-destruction. No one is stupid enough to do that, even Trump wouldn't be. So parent's remark is off.
For chips to be blocked going to Germany doesn't thus require a nuclear exchange. You rather should think of smth like military aggression from China towards Taiwan.
- cpursley 3y agoShooting down the Chinese ballon and arming Ukraine with long range weapons aren't potentially acts of provocation against nuclear powers? Reverse the roles. American ballon. Mexico getting armed against the US by a foreign superpower and sworn enemy. Would the US tolerate those acts?
- cpursley 3y agoPeople forget that JFK nearly nuked the USSR over the Cuban missile crisis (which was a response to NATO missiles in Turkey, ironically enough).
- djur 3y agoThe missiles at question in the Cuban missile crisis were nuclear. That's not a reasonable comparison to the non-nuclear confrontation in Ukraine.
- smoldesu 3y ago> Would the US tolerate those acts? Yes? What about their nuclear policy from the past half-century convinces you otherwise?
- justsomehnguy 3y agoIn the last 50 years US never had anything on their border.
- smoldesu 3y agoEven if they did, it wouldn't change much. 1. Nobody would launch nukes domestically, so moot point. 2. Using nukes internationally would be a faux-pas beyond fixing. Every modern, nuclear-equipped nation understands this. 3. The United States doesn't need nuclear weaponry to dispel invaders, or even to retaliate against foreign attacks. Their nuclear weapons exist to deter other nuclear superpowers from using their weapons for petty gain.
- martin8412 3y agoAbsolutely agreed. The US military is so well funded and capable that they could finish the job without needed to resort to nukes.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- SanjayMehta 3y agoNot sure if you’re being sarcastic or serious.
- cpursley 3y agoAmerica totally crushed Grenada!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sharts 3y agoDoesn’t the US make regular use of depleted uranium munitions? Particularly in the middle east? Definitely seems nuclear.
- djur 3y agoDepleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.
- cpursley 3y agoTell that to the non-combat victims: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903104/#:~:text=Research%20funded%20by%20the%20US,of%20DU%20weapons%20remain%20uncertain https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903104/#:~:tex....
- smoldesu 3y agoYou can tell them whatever you want. It won't change the wording of the Geneva convention though.
- djur 3y agoYou're free to argue that DU rounds are effectively a poisonous weapon and should be banned on those grounds. I would agree. That doesn't change the fact that depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.
- exceptione 3y ago> Reverse the roles. American ballon Ok. American balloon over China will be shot down. You know the rules about air space, water etc? Sincere advice: don't assume you have insights and knowledge that is deeper than those from the experts. This is a pitfall for us HN'ers.
- HeWhoLurksLate 3y agoMan, I wrote several replies to this comment but decided against them all. This is silly- the U.S. and China have been playing with balloons like this for years, that one was just really big
- flohofwoe 3y agoRight, the US would totally make nuclear threats against Mexico for shooting down a ballon. Not even Trump would be deranged enough for that (well on second thought, maybe he would but nobody would take him serious, just like Medvedev's daily nuclear threat).
- cpursley 3y agoThe Mexico example was long range weapons. If Chinese missiles were hitting American cities from Mexico (outside of the localized fighting), do you believe that has the possibility to escalate?
- flohofwoe 3y agoMaybe, but I can give a much more concrete example: Russia has nukes on Europe's doorstep in Kaliningrad which can reach Berlin in a couple of minutes, do you hear anybody in Germany, Europe or NATO whine about "escalation"?
- cpursley 3y agoCan you break this down? I don't follow.
- flohofwoe 3y agoTL;DR: Russia has Iskander missiles stationed in their Kaliningrad exclave (former Koenigsberg if Kaliningrad doesn't ring a bell), Iskander missiles can carry nuclear warheads and have a range of 500 km which is just enough to reach Berlin. Now add two and two together. Why would Russia station nuclear capable missiles in the middle of Europe without the nuclear warheads nearby?
- cpursley 3y agoI'm very aware of Kaliningrad and it's history. I don't understand your point. How does it relate to my analogy of a neighbor of America getting armed and trained by a sworn and bellicose enemy of America who states openly that it's goal is American regime change and geopolitical breakup. Under this scenario, I suspect the US would roll into Mexico and end that sooner than later under the Monroe Doctrine due to the real (or perceived) existential threat. At least, I would hope so - Mexico being in a military alliance with China (and it's 2000 or so mile border) would be not good.
- ToDougie 3y agoMight want to take a peek at a map of Eastern Europe.
- exceptione 3y agoThanks for your suggestion. There are a lot of things I don't know, but this subject is somewhat the exception to that. The US has made no nuclear threats, on the contrary, it has done everything to remind the Kremlin, which was and is threatening all kinds of countries with nuclear blackmail, that doing so is off limits. I will assume you were unknowingly repeating Kremlin propaganda. Please don't.