• captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
      75·
      27 days ago

      True. But also as an American we damn near nuked Korea and Vietnam, so I’m not going to act like we’re better

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
          63·
          27 days ago

          Didn’t, but the general that dropped them on Japan was fired for frequently trying to nuke Korea.

          We’ve come closer to nuking someone other than Japan than anyone but the USSR and China have

          • Kilometers_OBrien@startrek.websiteEnglish
            54·
            27 days ago

            I’d give your comment the tiniest but if credence if you had the data to quantify it, but 2/3 of your examples don’t think that kind of information should be shared.

            Basically, you’re forming an opinion based on incomplete data.

            It’s not verifiable.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      21·
      25 days ago

      The attitude toward wars displayed by countries that have never in living memory fought one on their own soil is frankly terrifying in its stupidity, though.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        25 days ago

        The last military power that was stupid enough to put on uniforms and march infantry onto American soil was the Confederate States of America. How’d it go for them?

        America’s attitude toward war is “If we’re going to fight, it’s gonna happen in your face, not mine.”

        • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          11·
          24 days ago

          I’d say it’s more like “we will only fight if we can keep it off our lawn and avoid tracking in the mud”. America didn’t dare fight 1939 Germany, only 1944 Germany when the war was already decided, and the real pivotal battles have already been won. It didn’t dare fight the Soviets when they took over half of Europe, and it didn’t dare fight the Soviets directly for the next century, and it “won” the Cold War by default, only to be coopted by Russian intelligence just recently.

          I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it’s so weird having grown up in a country that has really known war, and to talk with Americans who think fighting a war is anything glorious.

          And “every blade of grass” is reformer bullshit by the way, just to keep with the community theme. Unrestricted war crimes, nukes and chemical warfare, drones and stand-off munitions eviscerating clueless people. That’s what war is about.

  • Professorozone@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    26 days ago

    I have never seen a nuclear explosion in person and I hope I never do. I kind of think they SHOULD be treated with reverence.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      21·
      26 days ago

      On the one hand, a lot of people would die really horrible deaths. On the other hand, it would be really funny watching a Fox News host try and deal with a nuclear war on his first day in charge of the DOD

      Imagine how Kennedy Jr. would advise us on treating radiation sickness

      • weeeeum@lemmy.worldEnglish
        81·
        26 days ago

        I’m so fucking done with the west leading Ukraine on and giving them a bone when the front is at a breaking point. It’s clear that if Ukraine wants to win this war, it won’t be on the west’s terms. They are in a position where they can only rely on themselves.

        This nonsense of a drop of aid after irreplaceable casualties/losses isn’t sustainable.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          26 days ago

          Sure, but nobody is actually obligated to defend Ukraine since there’s no alliance. And that’s largely what this war is over, since Russia wants to keep it that way.

          I think the West should nut up and join the war to crush Russia or stop all aid, but this non-committal assistance isn’t really helping anything and just prolonging the war.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        11·
        26 days ago

        IMO as long as states like Iran aren’t getting access to nuclear bombs, it’s all kinda fair game at the end of the day. It puts everyone on the same level playing field.

        It’d be like going to war against a nation with guns, using swords. You’re not going to win, simple as that.

        The problem naturally, is that unstable nation states are a unique threat to the global population. As long as they don’t have access to nuclear bombs, generally, things should only get more geopolitically stable because the cost of humanity suffering would otherwise outweigh every possible benefit (primarily economic collapse and hardship)

        quick edit: most people would argue against this because nukes are big and scary. Most things are, i’m an objective realist and a political nihilist so things like “nukes are big and scary” isn’t really a significant consideration for me at the end of the day. And besides, the government could just black van me if they really wanted to. It’s not like i’m a significant target.

        also, there are arguments to be made surrounding this for fission based nuclear energy, which is kind of nice.

        • lychee🍒@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          1·
          26 days ago

          as long as states like Iran aren’t getting access

          This is kind of the whole argument against nuclear proliferation though. The more bombs that exist, the harder it is to keep it out of the hands of completely unpredictable groups like iran. You have allies to radical Islam all over the world, it’s how you get the kind of coordinated terrorism on the scale of 9/11 and the Paris attacks. Even one single security slip up might be enough to completely fuck us all.

          The barrier to entry between terrorists and nuclear weapons needs to be kept watertight, rock solid, and a mile thick, and you really can’t expect that on a global scale, it’s just the law of large numbers. The risks of proliferation therefore, in my opinion at least, are completely unacceptable

          Edit: also I just want to mention that the swords/guns metaphor really doesn’t work because this is a problem that potentially concerns the security of literally all life on earth. There is no historical precedent beyond a few decades of REALLY precarious history. That precedent is being set every single day with every policy and every minute to minute decision. The danger to humanity is very real

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            23 days ago

            This is kind of the whole argument against nuclear proliferation though. The more bombs that exist, the harder it is to keep it out of the hands of completely unpredictable groups like iran.

            this is true, however, the argument for nuclear proliferation would be that lots more countries having nuclear weapons would put countries like iran at a significant risk, since if they were to use them, they would likely be indefinitely obliterated. By several parties.

            but then again, give a man enough time, he will inevitably learn how to build a nuclear bomb, so maybe anti proliferation is bad. When people who want them, are going to get them at all costs anyway.

            It really is just a pandoras box, but i’m definitely not explicitly anti proliferation either. For whatever that’s worth lol.

            also I just want to mention that the swords/guns metaphor really doesn’t work because this is a problem that potentially concerns the security of literally all life on earth.

            i’m aware, it’s an analogy, it’s not meant to be perfectly accurate lol. It gets the point across.

  • helloworld55@lemm.eeEnglish
    312·
    27 days ago

    Wasn’t Chernobyl in Ukraine? Are they just okay with having a huge area just be uninhabitable for a few generations?

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.socialEnglish
    2379·
    28 days ago

    A total thermonuclear exchange can’t even kill humanity itself anymore, and honestly might save it.

    Let’s do this thing.