6 ms·

The only thing that we _need_ is ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which we already have plenty of. The rest of it is essentially optional. Even conceding the need f

The only thing that we _need_ is ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which we already have plenty of. The rest of it is essentially optional. Even conceding the need for a large conventional military force (soldiers/tanks/boats/aircraft/drones/etc), the US military is way overfunded, and significant budget cuts would actually be on the table if DOGE were a sincere effort to reduce government spending.

aftbit 2y ago
Clearly false. Nukes are just not that useful in about anything except the end of the world. If you're fighting a Ukraine-style war, nukes are worthless.
- jquery 2y ago
  Ukraine is only fighting an Ukraine-style war because it lacked nukes to begin with. Which, btw, they lack because we agreed to defend them from Russia if they agreed to not develop nukes.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
  - ArnoVW 2y ago
    Even better than that: the deal was that they should get rid of the ones they had.
  - slaw 2y ago
    There is nothing in the Budapest Memorandum about defend from Russia.
    - darthrupert 2y ago
      Yeah. In fact Russia was one of the nations that promised to protect Ukraine from attacks. But back then it didn't look like Russia was the primary risk to the free countries of this planet.
      - kelipso 2y ago
        Yes it did, the Cold War had just ended but Russia and USSR was still seen as the enemy by the US. It’s not that different from now. The difference is Ukraine was basically considered to be a part of Russia back then.
        braebo 2y ago
        That was true before the US government was captured by a Russian asset elected via Kremlin-backed disinformation campaigns. Now, the US has joined the bad guys.
        kelipso 2y ago
        Lol, where do you guys keep coming from?
        darthrupert 2y ago
        Even though it indeed doesn't look great, I think it's still too early to call US like that. Trump is behaving not unlike Biden insofar that his mind has clearly degraded over the last few years significantly. It's up to the people supporting him and about who talks to him just before he issues actual orders. Recently, it has been people like Putin which is reflected on his output. Others wilö talk to him too.
  - koolba 2y ago
    Ukraine only exists as a post Soviet country because we agreed with Russia that they (Ukraine) would never have nukes nor be a part of NATO. They otherwise would never have allowed the formation of a separate government. The insane rhetoric of Biden and Zelensky and specifically entertaining the idea of Ukraine joining NATO is what led to this tragedy. It’d be like Mexico joining the USSR. Do you think the USA would simply let that happen?
    - drawkward 2y ago
      As if neither Trump nor Putin has reneged on a deal before. For fucks sake, who gives a shit about what Russia thinks? They suppress democracy and political opposition. They poison journalists outside of Russia. They jail and kill public interest figures. They kidnap and jail Americans on false pretexts.
      - CapricornNoble 2y ago
        [flagged]
        jquery 2y ago
        False equivalency, comparing the aggressor Russia with a country that's in a literal fight for its survival. Straight up Kremlin talking points. Not food for thought.
        koolba 2y ago
        > comparing the aggressor Russia with a country that's in a literal fight for its survival. Straight up Kremlin talking points. Not food for thought. I'm sure Russia feels the same when considering the prospect of a neighbor joining an nuclear armed international alliance constructed specifically to oppose it's power and existence. My goto analogy for this is the hypothetical of Mexico joining the USSR. Sure it sounds far fetched, but how do you think the USA would react to that type of situation?
- jmb99 2y ago
  If the only weapon a country has is nukes, would you attack them, knowing that their only possible (and pretty much guaranteed) retaliation is nukes?
  - defrost 2y ago
    On their own ground, deep in the heart of their most populated cities, using their own civilian aircraft, knowing they're unlikely to destroy their own cities and believing that your vision of God is on your side .. sure. As rhetorical questions go, that one's not great.
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    Think about it. Would you be willing to end the world if your neighboring country just took one town? How about a city? A region? Countries need more than nukes to defend themselves because it's not credible or sensible to threaten to end the world over what could be just a border dispute.
    - smegger001 2y ago
      its not a end of world scenario until you get to superpower vs superpower even then the southern hemisphere would probably hold up fairly well if Russia and NATO went all out.
      - Sabinus 2y ago
        If you like you can modify the calculus to 'destroy and poison the vast majority of our cities and people' and the calculus holds. Countries need non-nuclear deterrence.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    Nukes only deter your enemies from doing something that you are willing to end the world over. They are useless for everything else.
    - lying4fun 2y ago
crucialfelix 2y ago
Nobody can use Nuclear bombs without serious repercussions. Putin considered using new, smaller tactical nukes on Ukraine and that set off huge international opposition. The mere mention of nukes is extremely counter productive to whatever a state is trying to accomplish. By some estimates Israel dropped 4 Hiroshimas worth of explosives on Gaza. https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/the-israeli-destruction-of-gaza-overshadows-hiroshima-tragedy-18192320 https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/the-israeli-destruction... The US dropped far more destruction on Bagdad in 2003 than on Hiroshima. Modern conventional bombing is far more effective and just as hideous.
- notpushkin 2y ago
  I think governments are afraid of nukes not because of the destructive power. Nukes are the only weapons that put the actual people in charge in danger, not just the civilians or the military. People in charge are afraid for their lives, not for the people they are supposed to protect. It’s a simplisic view, I know.
  - westmeal 2y ago
    The senators and president will be OK, they have plans to evac to a huge bunker with everything they need. I don't know about you but I don't seem to have a taxpayer funded mega bunker.
    - asvitkine 2y ago
      For some definition of OK. It would be a big negative change to their lifestyles even if they're still alive. Also, it assumes they can get to those locations in time from wherever they happen to be.
    - kelipso 2y ago
      A lot of their families and friends are not going to be in the bunkers.
    - dworkr 2y ago
      They'll have no one left to pander to.

aftbit 2y ago

Clearly false. Nukes are just not that useful in about anything except the end of the world. If you're fighting a Ukraine-style war, nukes are worthless.

jquery 2y ago
Ukraine is only fighting an Ukraine-style war because it lacked nukes to begin with. Which, btw, they lack because we agreed to defend them from Russia if they agreed to not develop nukes.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- ArnoVW 2y ago
  Even better than that: the deal was that they should get rid of the ones they had.
- slaw 2y ago
  There is nothing in the Budapest Memorandum about defend from Russia.
  - darthrupert 2y ago
    Yeah. In fact Russia was one of the nations that promised to protect Ukraine from attacks. But back then it didn't look like Russia was the primary risk to the free countries of this planet.
    - kelipso 2y ago
      Yes it did, the Cold War had just ended but Russia and USSR was still seen as the enemy by the US. It’s not that different from now. The difference is Ukraine was basically considered to be a part of Russia back then.
      - braebo 2y ago
        That was true before the US government was captured by a Russian asset elected via Kremlin-backed disinformation campaigns. Now, the US has joined the bad guys.
        kelipso 2y ago
        Lol, where do you guys keep coming from?
        darthrupert 2y ago
        Even though it indeed doesn't look great, I think it's still too early to call US like that. Trump is behaving not unlike Biden insofar that his mind has clearly degraded over the last few years significantly. It's up to the people supporting him and about who talks to him just before he issues actual orders. Recently, it has been people like Putin which is reflected on his output. Others wilö talk to him too.
- koolba 2y ago
  Ukraine only exists as a post Soviet country because we agreed with Russia that they (Ukraine) would never have nukes nor be a part of NATO. They otherwise would never have allowed the formation of a separate government. The insane rhetoric of Biden and Zelensky and specifically entertaining the idea of Ukraine joining NATO is what led to this tragedy. It’d be like Mexico joining the USSR. Do you think the USA would simply let that happen?
  - drawkward 2y ago
    As if neither Trump nor Putin has reneged on a deal before. For fucks sake, who gives a shit about what Russia thinks? They suppress democracy and political opposition. They poison journalists outside of Russia. They jail and kill public interest figures. They kidnap and jail Americans on false pretexts.
    - CapricornNoble 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - jquery 2y ago
        False equivalency, comparing the aggressor Russia with a country that's in a literal fight for its survival. Straight up Kremlin talking points. Not food for thought.
        koolba 2y ago
        > comparing the aggressor Russia with a country that's in a literal fight for its survival. Straight up Kremlin talking points. Not food for thought. I'm sure Russia feels the same when considering the prospect of a neighbor joining an nuclear armed international alliance constructed specifically to oppose it's power and existence. My goto analogy for this is the hypothetical of Mexico joining the USSR. Sure it sounds far fetched, but how do you think the USA would react to that type of situation?
jmb99 2y ago
If the only weapon a country has is nukes, would you attack them, knowing that their only possible (and pretty much guaranteed) retaliation is nukes?
- defrost 2y ago
  On their own ground, deep in the heart of their most populated cities, using their own civilian aircraft, knowing they're unlikely to destroy their own cities and believing that your vision of God is on your side .. sure. As rhetorical questions go, that one's not great.
- Sabinus 2y ago
  Think about it. Would you be willing to end the world if your neighboring country just took one town? How about a city? A region? Countries need more than nukes to defend themselves because it's not credible or sensible to threaten to end the world over what could be just a border dispute.
  - smegger001 2y ago
    its not a end of world scenario until you get to superpower vs superpower even then the southern hemisphere would probably hold up fairly well if Russia and NATO went all out.
    - Sabinus 2y ago
      If you like you can modify the calculus to 'destroy and poison the vast majority of our cities and people' and the calculus holds. Countries need non-nuclear deterrence.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  Nukes only deter your enemies from doing something that you are willing to end the world over. They are useless for everything else.
  - lying4fun 2y ago

crucialfelix 2y ago

Nobody can use Nuclear bombs without serious repercussions. Putin considered using new, smaller tactical nukes on Ukraine and that set off huge international opposition. The mere mention of nukes is extremely counter productive to whatever a state is trying to accomplish. By some estimates Israel dropped 4 Hiroshimas worth of explosives on Gaza. https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/the-israeli-destruction-of-gaza-overshadows-hiroshima-tragedy-18192320 https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/the-israeli-destruction... The US dropped far more destruction on Bagdad in 2003 than on Hiroshima. Modern conventional bombing is far more effective and just as hideous.

notpushkin 2y ago
I think governments are afraid of nukes not because of the destructive power. Nukes are the only weapons that put the actual people in charge in danger, not just the civilians or the military. People in charge are afraid for their lives, not for the people they are supposed to protect. It’s a simplisic view, I know.
- westmeal 2y ago
  The senators and president will be OK, they have plans to evac to a huge bunker with everything they need. I don't know about you but I don't seem to have a taxpayer funded mega bunker.
  - asvitkine 2y ago
    For some definition of OK. It would be a big negative change to their lifestyles even if they're still alive. Also, it assumes they can get to those locations in time from wherever they happen to be.
  - kelipso 2y ago
    A lot of their families and friends are not going to be in the bunkers.
  - dworkr 2y ago
    They'll have no one left to pander to.