this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
127 points (97.0% liked)
World News
33451 readers
650 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
so he is about to sell america out. good luck, voters
i guess ill look forward to /conservativeMemes about how bending the knee is is a good thing.
“hUrRr rUsSiA sTaNdS fOr PeAcE iN eUrOpE”
Yeah with all the ways he seems to be actively trying to ruin the country I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see him have the US do it first and then the others "can follow" after they see we did it.
Except what they'll follow with are nukes aimed at us to ensure we can never get in their ways again. :/
As long as he gets a few million Rubles and Yuan in his pocket, he would absolutely do this.
downvote? how about explaining.
Not the downvoter, but how about you explaining how restarting nuclear disarmament talks is selling out the American people?
The world is closer to nuclear war now then ever in history. It is now 89 seconds to midnight
Simple, without nukes we'll have war, real war, real dead Americans. Most of the reason the doomsday clock is so close right now, is because of Trump. His flippant bullshit about Gaza enraged the Arab world, stepping them closer to nuclear war. His attempts at peace in Ukraine, without involving the Ukrainians, is more likely to cause Ukraine to escalate. His defense secretary just told the Russian's they could defeat the US Navy. Definitely bullshit, but also makes Russia think they can start more shit, probably starting a wider war with NATO.
As opposed to dead everyone? Maybe consider that infinite war isn't the default state of a normal country.
Lmao not even fucking close. It was Obama who prepared this particular powder keg, it was Biden who set it off, it was Biden playing chicken with the nukes, and it was also Biden commissioning reports desperately looking for a scenario where he could let the fucking bombs fly.
I know libs like to pretend they live in a James Bond movie but Russia isn't interested in a protracted conflict with Europe, it's been trying to integrate their economy with them for over 30 years and the US keeps sticking its dick in the punch bowl.
If we draw down, between the number of nukes we have now, and 0, there will be a global war. The actual number of nukes won't matter, humanity will be at risk of extinction.
The only ones at fault for where we are now are the GoP and Trump. They've destabilized the Middle East by supporting Israels settlements, taken every dime from Putin to do his bidding for decades, tore up Pacific treaties to stop Xi, while doing every thing they can to get Iran to give them a pretense to invade.
Do you draw your theories from any actual school of geopolitics/international relations, or are you just winging it?
Because it seems like you’re your flying solo in your own paranoid mind palace, completely divorced from material reality.
How about all of human history. It's never worked out well for the larger hegemony to reduce itself to the benefit of adversaries.
What is this, noncredibledefense?
Really? How well did throwing away nukes go for Ukraine?
Irrelevant. This is about multilateral nuclear arms reduction, not unilateral nuclear disarmament.
And every step closer, is a step closer to death. Nuclear weapons are a tigers tail. When we let go, we all die.
More like a paper tiger, you fuckin psycho
Japan survived two nukes and became one of the largest financial forces in the world. So how many could Russia survive? 10? 50? Maybe Putin like those odds. Maybe Iran decides it's worth it to clear out Israel. If there's only a few nukes involved, the crazy fucks start thinking they can win a nuclear war, or at least survive it well enough to be worth it.
Having less nukes is not the same as disarmament it's not even comparable. They dropped two nukes and did that much destruction in Japan, 2, and those were 1940s nukes, even with this change the US would still have thousands of nukes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-nuclear-weapons-exist-and-who-has-them/
Ukraine went to 0 nukes, the US has 5000+ nukes, how would that even be comparable if the US let's say went down to 1000 nukes. That's still 1000 nukes more than 0.
Every step closer to disarmament bring us closer to nuclear war. Every nuke disarmed makes us one step closer to Putin or Xi thinking they can win a nuclear war.
By that logic, we must build 100x more nukes than we currently have, and if anyone suggests that 10x more is enough, they're a Russian puppet.
Or would you care to explain why the current number of nukes is the perfect amount, as opposed to, say, 1000 less? Did you even know how many nukes the US has when you wrote your comment?
The actual number is irrelevant, the change in number does Khamenei doesn't know how many nukes Israel or the US actual have. He'll make decisions based on what he does know. And a draw down tells him he can get away with more attacks.
Nuclear weapons didn't prevent Ukraine. We just got closer to annihilation than ever.
They sure at shit would have.
Putin only invaded because Ukraine voluntarily disarmed after promises of protection from the US.
And the threat of all those Western nuclear powers in Ukraine didn't make Putin blink. Instead we just got closer to nuclear war than any time in recent memory.
If you know even a single thing about Ukraine's history as an independent country, you know this comment is completely braindead and oozing with irony.
Russia was willing to risk nuclear war by fighting nuclear powers in Ukraine. If Ukraine had nukes maybe we'd just have the apocalypse.
America has already been sold out. Almost every year, no matter who's in charge, the military gets bigger while everything else gets cut. The only people who benefit from it are military contractors and politicians. Of all the many wars since WWII, not one of them has actually benefitted ordinary people, and a lot of them have made the lives of ordinary people much worse for no reason. But because it's what the rich want, there's complete bipartisan support for it. People are struggling more and more every day to access education, healthcare, even basic necessities, while even our infrastructure is falling apart, but we have an endless supply of bombs and weapons, spending more on that than the next 9 countries combined.
If you actually care about US security, you should support cutting the military in favor of domestic spending, because at this point, who's going to stick their neck out to protect such a dysfunctional system? But no, even the supposedly "left-leaning" party is fully on board with militarism and jingoism while the core rots. To the point of attacking conservatives from the right over it!
As I say in my other comment in this thread, Trump isn't actually going to cut the military, he increased military spending in his first term and will most likely do so again. However, because of insane liberals who somehow still believe in "benevolent interventionism" even after Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump is able to triangulate and pick up antiwar, libertarian types who can't see through his act. Liberals do everything in their power to help him by openly supporting militarism and denouncing anyone who opposes it as a "Russian bot" (or similar), regardless of their reasons.
The bizarre thing is how someone can square the circle of angrily opposing military cuts while not recognizing that they're a right-winger.