2 ms·
>Better to have a plan and not need . . . this is asking if and when we’ll disarm a warmonger (if at all). Well, sure, but the plan goes into action only after
by hollerith 2y ago
>Better to have a plan and not need . . . this is asking if and when we’ll disarm a warmonger (if at all).
Well, sure, but the plan goes into action only after the Kremlin has done some grievous harm to US interests, e.g., by causing thousands of nuclear warheads to explode over US city centers. We shouldn't as a nation embrace some totally impractical code of ethics that even we do not follow and try to use our military forces to punish transgressions of that code as if we are the world police.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoWe agree to disagree then on global military projection and policy, which is fine. We should use military projection when innocent people are in harm’s way. That’s what the annual DoD budget, military hardware, and weapons systems are for. Sometimes, might makes right, and peace through superior firepower, because there will always be bullies.
- hollerith 2y agoWhat is your stance on nuclear readiness? If we as a nation (the US) are going to confront nuclear powers like Moscow, shouldn't US civilians be a whole lot more prepared for a nuclear war than we actually are? The chances of a nuclear attack are very low even if we keep on confronting Moscow, but if the very-low-probability outcome actually does come to pass, literally millions of lives would be saved by a cheap investment in readiness now.