NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Cool you just violated your constitutional duty to protect and defend the US.

How?

Thermodolia wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:The Cold War is over, and the world's a much different place. Modern technology makes traditional war with another superpower impossible, replacing it mostly with a system of targeted strikes, both physical and technologically, to the opponent. It's a new century, and in this new century the rules are different.

The Cold War isn’t over it’s just been on pause. And no the reason why Russia and the West and the US and China haven’t gone to war isn’t because of Modern tech but because of nukes and the fear that if the US or China, or Russia or France was on its last legs they’d nuke the opposition rather than surrender

Zurkir wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:The Cold War is over, and the world's a much different place. Modern technology makes traditional war with another superpower impossible, replacing it mostly with a system of targeted strikes, both physical and technologically, to the opponent. It's a new century, and in this new century the rules are different.

Not as different a place as you’ve been indoctrinated to think it is. China, Russia, Iran, and NK for example are nuclear capable and all of these nations are rival nations/enemies of ours. China and Russia are both very aggressive in particular and are competing for dominant positions. China itself has already been marked as very possibly being at war with the US in the coming future. As I said, they are nuclear capable and the US disarming itself and rattling swords with them inevitably (such is the world) is suicide.

Alcala-Cordel wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:The president has the duty to protect the US from harm. Refusing to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike is a violation of that duty

Any president who launches a retaliatory strike is condemning countless innocent lives to death, not to mention the fallout. It's better to go down in flames alone than take half the fucking planet with you

Alcala-Cordel wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:The Cold War isn’t over it’s just been on pause. And no the reason why Russia and the West and the US and China haven’t gone to war isn’t because of Modern tech but because of nukes and the fear that if the US or China, or Russia or France was on its last legs they’d nuke the opposition rather than surrender

The Cold War is over, and it's not MAD preventing us from entering another one. China is not the Soviet Union, and neither are any of our other nuclear competitors. We're all more connected than ever, and old-school rivalries just don't work anymore.

China doesn't want to destroy the US, it wants to exploit it and sell things to it.

North Washington Republic wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:Any president who launches a retaliatory strike is condemning countless innocent lives to death, not to mention the fallout. It's better to go down in flames alone than take half the fucking planet with you

So, in your view, America shouldn’t have a retaliatory strike when they are struck with a nuclear bomb? What you’re saying is your okay with thousands, if not millions of innocence people dying as long as they’re Americans.

This takes “fuck America” to a whole another level.

Thermodolia wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:The Cold War is over, and it's not MAD preventing us from entering another one. China is not the Soviet Union, and neither are any of our other nuclear competitors. We're all more connected than ever, and old-school rivalries just don't work anymore.

China doesn't want to destroy the US, it wants to exploit it and sell things to it.

The Cold War isn’t over no matter how much your peacenik self wants to believe it. Sorry that’s just reality

Thermodolia wrote:

Zurkir wrote:
Not as different a place as you’ve been indoctrinated to think it is. China, Russia, Iran, and NK for example are nuclear capable and all of these nations are rival nations/enemies of ours. China and Russia are both very aggressive in particular and are competing for dominant positions. China itself has already been marked as very possibly being at war with the US in the coming future. As I said, they are nuclear capable and the US disarming itself and rattling swords with them inevitably (such is the world) is suicide.

More to the point right now we can threaten nuclear war if China attempts to take Taiwan or we can at least go to war with China in the very real event they invade. Which btw China is planning on invading Taiwan within the next 5 years or so.

Without nukes China can and will tell us to back off or get nuked if we attempt to intervene in the defense of Taiwan. And people who think that China wouldn’t nuke the US in such a situation is seriously naïve

Alcala-Cordel wrote:

North Washington Republic wrote:
So, in your view, America shouldn’t have a retaliatory strike when they are struck with a nuclear bomb? What you’re saying is your okay with thousands, if not millions of innocence people dying as long as they’re Americans.

This takes “fuck America” to a whole another level.

What I'm saying retaliatory nukes don't really help and just kill more innocent people.

North Washington Republic wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:More to the point right now we can threaten nuclear war if China attempts to take Taiwan or we can at least go to war with China in the very real event they invade. Which btw China is planning on invading Taiwan within the next 5 years or so.

Without nukes China can and will tell us to back off or get nuked if we attempt to intervene in the defense of Taiwan. And people who think that China wouldn’t nuke the US in such a situation is seriously naïve

I agreed. We should be dramatically increasing our nuclear arsenal because China and Russia are getting more bold and more grandiose. The only thing they understand is strength. Russia thinks they can invade former soviet states and China thinks they own the South China Sea and they own Taiwan.

Alcala-Cordel wrote:

North Washington Republic wrote:
So, in your view, America shouldn’t have a retaliatory strike when they are struck with a nuclear bomb? What you’re saying is your okay with thousands, if not millions of innocence people dying as long as they’re Americans.

This takes “fuck America” to a whole another level.

WHOA. Absolutely not. What I'm saying is retaliatory nukes don't really help the situation and just kill more innocent people.

Thermodolia wrote:The Cold War isn’t over no matter how much your peacenik self wants to believe it. Sorry that’s just reality

We're not beyond war or arms races, the rules have just changed.

Thermodolia wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:WHOA. Absolutely not. What I'm saying is retaliatory nukes don't really help the situation and just kill more innocent people.

The situation is already fucked. It doesn’t matter. Refusing to launch a return strike defeats the entire point of MAD

We're not beyond war or arms races, the rules have just changed.

The rules haven’t changed you’ve just bought into propaganda that says they have.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:What I'm saying retaliatory nukes don't really help and just kill more innocent people.

But the credible threat of retaliation is what prevents their nukes from being launched in the first place.

Look: we probably have more nuclear weapons then we need. But keeping some around isn't a bad idea.

Neanderthaland wrote:

North Washington Republic wrote:
I agreed. We should be dramatically increasing our nuclear arsenal because China and Russia are getting more bold and more grandiose. The only thing they understand is strength. Russia thinks they can invade former soviet states and China thinks they own the South China Sea and they own Taiwan.

We don't need to dramatically increase anything. The current US arsenal is more than sufficient to completely destroy Russia and China in every way that matters.

Alcala-Cordel wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:But the credible threat of retaliation is what prevents their nukes from being launched in the first place.

Look: we probably have more nuclear weapons then we need. But keeping some around isn't a bad idea.

The environmental damage of a nuclear attack makes MAD unnecessary. No one wants to launch a nuke.

San Lumen wrote:https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-voters-will-decide-whether-to-grant-mayor-more-power/600043359/

Minneapolis will be be voting on a referendum in November to decide whether to increase the power of the mayor. The position is currently very weak other than having your power to a point certain officials. The mayoral election and city council election is also being held in the fall.

Incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey is likely to face multiple challengers and a tough re-election fight. He has faced much criticism for his response to the Floyd protests and riots and is widely unpopular.

Alcala-Cordel wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:The situation is already fucked. It doesn’t matter. Refusing to launch a return strike defeats the entire point of MAD


The rules haven’t changed you’ve just bought into propaganda that says they have.

Neanderthaland wrote:But the credible threat of retaliation is what prevents their nukes from being launched in the first place.

Look: we probably have more nuclear weapons then we need. But keeping some around isn't a bad idea.

The environmental damage of a nuclear attack makes MAD unnecessary. No one wants to launch a nuke.

And yes, things have changed.

North Washington Republic wrote:

San Lumen wrote:https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-voters-will-decide-whether-to-grant-mayor-more-power/600043359/

Minneapolis will be be voting on a referendum in November to decide whether to increase the power of the mayor. The position is currently very weak other than having your power to a point certain officials. The mayoral election and city council election is also being held in the fall.

Incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey is likely to face multiple challengers and a tough re-election fight. He has faced much criticism for his response to the Floyd protests and riots and is widely unpopular.

The thing is is that Jacob Frey is a moderate when it comes to Minneapolis politics. He might be replaced with an Anarcho-communist that wants to abolish the police, like many on the council want. Along with the pandemic,this is what keeps me up at night. Minneapolis is being used as a social experiment. What the far-left in the city seem to not understand is that white supremacists also want to abolish the police department because they think that will make their stupid race war easier to start.

Neanderthaland wrote:

North Washington Republic wrote:
The thing is is that Jacob Frey is a moderate when it comes to Minneapolis politics. He might be replaced with an Anarcho-communist that wants to abolish the police, like many on the council want. Along with the pandemic,this is what keeps me up at night. Minneapolis is being used as a social experiment. What the far-left in the city seem to not understand is that white supremacists also want to abolish the police department because they think that will make their stupid race war easier to start.

Somehow I think we'll be okay.

Neanderthaland wrote:

North Washington Republic wrote:
The thing is is that Jacob Frey is a moderate when it comes to Minneapolis politics. He might be replaced with an Anarcho-communist that wants to abolish the police, like many on the council want. Along with the pandemic,this is what keeps me up at night. Minneapolis is being used as a social experiment. What the far-left in the city seem to not understand is that white supremacists also want to abolish the police department because they think that will make their stupid race war easier to start.

Somehow I think we'll be okay.

Thermodolia wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:Somehow I think we'll be okay.

As long as that asshole of a cop gets convicted. Which I worry he wont

Neanderthaland wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:The environmental damage of a nuclear attack makes MAD unnecessary. No one wants to launch a nuke.

A single nuke doesn't do very much environmental damage beyond the area that's getting nuked. So I don't think that's even a consideration.

Now if you're talking a 2,000 warhead exchange scenario, with many of those weapons being set to ground burst over missile silos and the like, then environmental consequences become more pronounced. But at that point everything is pretty apocalyptic anyway.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:As long as that asshole of a cop gets convicted. Which I worry he wont

I was worried about that as well, but the way the trial is going it's looking increasingly like he'll be found guilty of something.

Maybe not murder 2, which is what everyone wants, but I don't think he's getting out of this without serving time.

North Washington Republic wrote:

San Lumen wrote:https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-voters-will-decide-whether-to-grant-mayor-more-power/600043359/

Minneapolis will be be voting on a referendum in November to decide whether to increase the power of the mayor. The position is currently very weak other than having your power to a point certain officials. The mayoral election and city council election is also being held in the fall.

Incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey is likely to face multiple challengers and a tough re-election fight. He has faced much criticism for his response to the Floyd protests and riots and is widely unpopular.

The thing is is that Jacob Frey is a moderate when it comes to Minneapolis politics. He might be replaced with an Anarcho-communist that wants to abolish the police, like many on the council want. Along with the pandemic,this is what keeps me up at night. Minneapolis is being used as a social experiment. What the far-left in the city seem to not understand is that white supremacists also want to abolish the police department because they think that will make their stupid race war easier to start.

North Washington Republic wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:Somehow I think we'll be okay.

Um, no. Violent crime has soared in the city I live in the third precinct, so you cannot tell me that it’s all peaches and cream.