5 ms·

Nuclear proliferation is the only logical response to this administration. Tripling the number of nuclear armed countries will greatly increase the odds of a ho

by rurp 2y ago

Nuclear proliferation is the only logical response to this administration. Tripling the number of nuclear armed countries will greatly increase the odds of a hot conflict breaking out which risks the safety of everyone in the world. Of course this fairly straightforward calculus seems beyond what trump/musk are capable of and they are actively working to make Americans safer and less prosperous is countless ways.

osrec 2y ago
Safer? Do you mean the opposite?
- rurp 2y ago
  Whoops, yep I definitely meant "less safe"
- spwa4 2y ago
  The certainty of a war right now vs maybe a nuke tomorrow? Surely you can see that's an easy choice. And if you can't perhaps read one of the articles on Bucha?
  - osrec 2y ago
    Certainty of war now Vs a potential nuclear war tomorrow? Are those really the only choices as far as you're concerned?
    - spwa4 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict... Pretty much all these conflicts are pretty limited and there's very few states focused on war (whereas before Nukes in the 20th century essentially all of Europe and Asia was focused on war, constantly) So yes, I find the idea that the nuclear weapons threat is preventing a LOT of wider wars and is responsible for the most peaceful period ever in human history pretty convincing. When it comes to relations between states, arguments go between capitalism and war (ie. just taking what you want vs trade) I get that capitalism (selling/exporting their oil) brought Soviets enormous success and taking what they want in war brought the USSR down. And yet, despite that, here we are with Russia and Ukraine. You'd think recent Russian history would convince anyone the Ukraine conflict is not worth it, obviously not for Ukraine, but also not for Russia. It's an easy argument to make that for Russia abandoning the war today, just going home right now, will provide more rewards for Russia and Russians than a complete victory would bring, even if that victory ALSO came today ... and yet nobody thinks Russia will abandon the fight. As for their ability to wage war, the sad truth is, Putin has conquered more people than he lost, and Russia has conquered more minerals' than they lost in equipment. If Putin wants to use both resources to create more war, he will be able to do so. Something very similar can be said about China and Taiwan. Not having a conflict is obviously the best option ... and yet, there's very little doubt that conflict will erupt in a few years, not decades.
      - osrec 2y ago
        So you propose any invaded territory just concedes to prevent nuclear war? Would your opinion be the same if it was your homeland that was invaded? Also, it's not clear what you're getting at... perhaps you can elaborate on your thinking?
        spwa4 2y ago
        That's the current "international order", represented by the UN security council. Borders stay where they are, except for: nuclear powers get to invade whoever they want, WITHOUT using nuclear weapons (and other nuclear powers get to support the invaded country with non-nuclear weapons). Exceptions can be granted by the UN security council, taking the veto system into account (so not for Ukraine) It doesn't matter what I propose or not, this is the only international order we have, and the best one that has ever existed. And yes, I will agree with what Einstein said, namely that he's extremely disappointed in it.
worldsayshi 2y ago
They might not care. Musk (et al) seem to be addicted to risk taking.
- dummydummy1234 2y ago
  The drugs probably help.
- finghin 2y ago
  He and Trump share an enormous amount of plainly evident narcissistic traits, which are effective in business but fatal combined with toxic, quixotic ideology. Impulsivity is among those features. Narcissists embrace and promote tribalism, which shores their power and volatilises their circles and communities. As conflicts arise, individuals are forced to take side. It is better for the narcissist to lead a battle to disaster than to be the benign civilian in a country at peace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disor...
makeitdouble 2y ago
At some point having nukes might not make a difference though. To quote the mean, when everyone is special nobody is anymore, and having proxy access to nukes could be enough as a deterrent (e.g. being in an alliance that triggers a nuclear response in case of nuclear attack should be enough ?)
- jychang 2y ago
  Eh "when everyone is special nobody is anymore" is strongly not true when it comes to nukes and MAD. This is obvious.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    > This is obvious In your own response you've extended the subject to MAD. And there are dozens of other factors that will impact a country's geopolitical position. None of this is obvious.
- rurp 2y ago
  The problem is that wars inevitably break out between countries. They are bad enough with conventional means, but wars with nuclear arsenals can quickly scale to unimagineable catastrophies.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    This the reason no nukes were dropped since WW2, and why I also think the next mass massacre won't be from nukes but any other mean that won't have the same international framework. Vietnam wasn't nukes, and it wasn't just a fluke. Gaza wasn't nuked, yet the whole area is now flat.
randerson 2y ago
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is with a good guy with a nuke."
- eldgfipo 2y ago
  No good guy ever had nuke.

by rurp 2y ago

osrec 2y ago

Safer? Do you mean the opposite?

rurp 2y ago
Whoops, yep I definitely meant "less safe"
spwa4 2y ago
The certainty of a war right now vs maybe a nuke tomorrow? Surely you can see that's an easy choice. And if you can't perhaps read one of the articles on Bucha?
- osrec 2y ago
  Certainty of war now Vs a potential nuclear war tomorrow? Are those really the only choices as far as you're concerned?
  - spwa4 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict... Pretty much all these conflicts are pretty limited and there's very few states focused on war (whereas before Nukes in the 20th century essentially all of Europe and Asia was focused on war, constantly) So yes, I find the idea that the nuclear weapons threat is preventing a LOT of wider wars and is responsible for the most peaceful period ever in human history pretty convincing. When it comes to relations between states, arguments go between capitalism and war (ie. just taking what you want vs trade) I get that capitalism (selling/exporting their oil) brought Soviets enormous success and taking what they want in war brought the USSR down. And yet, despite that, here we are with Russia and Ukraine. You'd think recent Russian history would convince anyone the Ukraine conflict is not worth it, obviously not for Ukraine, but also not for Russia. It's an easy argument to make that for Russia abandoning the war today, just going home right now, will provide more rewards for Russia and Russians than a complete victory would bring, even if that victory ALSO came today ... and yet nobody thinks Russia will abandon the fight. As for their ability to wage war, the sad truth is, Putin has conquered more people than he lost, and Russia has conquered more minerals' than they lost in equipment. If Putin wants to use both resources to create more war, he will be able to do so. Something very similar can be said about China and Taiwan. Not having a conflict is obviously the best option ... and yet, there's very little doubt that conflict will erupt in a few years, not decades.
    - osrec 2y ago
      So you propose any invaded territory just concedes to prevent nuclear war? Would your opinion be the same if it was your homeland that was invaded? Also, it's not clear what you're getting at... perhaps you can elaborate on your thinking?
      - spwa4 2y ago
        That's the current "international order", represented by the UN security council. Borders stay where they are, except for: nuclear powers get to invade whoever they want, WITHOUT using nuclear weapons (and other nuclear powers get to support the invaded country with non-nuclear weapons). Exceptions can be granted by the UN security council, taking the veto system into account (so not for Ukraine) It doesn't matter what I propose or not, this is the only international order we have, and the best one that has ever existed. And yes, I will agree with what Einstein said, namely that he's extremely disappointed in it.

worldsayshi 2y ago

They might not care. Musk (et al) seem to be addicted to risk taking.

dummydummy1234 2y ago
The drugs probably help.
finghin 2y ago
He and Trump share an enormous amount of plainly evident narcissistic traits, which are effective in business but fatal combined with toxic, quixotic ideology. Impulsivity is among those features. Narcissists embrace and promote tribalism, which shores their power and volatilises their circles and communities. As conflicts arise, individuals are forced to take side. It is better for the narcissist to lead a battle to disaster than to be the benign civilian in a country at peace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disor...

makeitdouble 2y ago

At some point having nukes might not make a difference though. To quote the mean, when everyone is special nobody is anymore, and having proxy access to nukes could be enough as a deterrent (e.g. being in an alliance that triggers a nuclear response in case of nuclear attack should be enough ?)

jychang 2y ago
Eh "when everyone is special nobody is anymore" is strongly not true when it comes to nukes and MAD. This is obvious.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  > This is obvious In your own response you've extended the subject to MAD. And there are dozens of other factors that will impact a country's geopolitical position. None of this is obvious.
rurp 2y ago
The problem is that wars inevitably break out between countries. They are bad enough with conventional means, but wars with nuclear arsenals can quickly scale to unimagineable catastrophies.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  This the reason no nukes were dropped since WW2, and why I also think the next mass massacre won't be from nukes but any other mean that won't have the same international framework. Vietnam wasn't nukes, and it wasn't just a fluke. Gaza wasn't nuked, yet the whole area is now flat.

randerson 2y ago

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is with a good guy with a nuke."

eldgfipo 2y ago
No good guy ever had nuke.