American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[North Washington Republic]

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.

Awesome

And people like you is why we need law enforcement.

[North Washington Republic]

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.

That's cool. I'm just slightly West of you. I don't think Minneapolis is in any real danger of an anarcho-communist takeover.

EDIT: And I'm not going to argue over it. I'm just going to let you reflect on this in a year, when it didn't happen. Although I'm sure you'll find a way to convince yourself that it did somehow.

I know, it is cool that my clinic was nearly burnt down. *nods*

[Neanderthaland]

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.

Only it does, because the ecosystemic overlap would throw the entire food chain out of balance.

From a single device?

It never has before.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Awesome

And people like you is why we need law enforcement.

I've never done anything illegal of any significance, if you can believe that. Never really had a reason to, and I'm fairly mellow irl.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Only it does, because the ecosystemic overlap would throw the entire food chain out of balance.

From a single device?

It never has before.

That's because we're really careful about how we test our nukes. In fact, some of them are so powerful that we usem computers instead of testing them.

[Neanderthaland]

From a single device?

It never has before.

That's because we're really careful about how we test our nukes. In fact, some of them are so powerful that we usem computers instead of testing them.

I mean, not really...

Nobody ever concerned themselves with the effects of nukes on the American Southwest until well after there had been extensive testing. Bikini atoll was an absolute clusterfuck. The largest bomb ever developed was detonated by the Soviets out in the open in the Artic with no care whatsoever for environmental impact.

[North Washington Republic]

And people like you is why we need law enforcement.

I've never done anything illegal of any significance, if you can believe that. Never really had a reason to, and I'm fairly mellow irl.

Good for you. It was anarchists and boogaloo boys, both who have a hatred for law enforcement that was causing the majority of the damage. With the rest being apolitical psychopaths.

[Kowani]

That's because we're really careful about how we test our nukes. In fact, some of them are so powerful that we usem computers instead of testing them.

I mean, not really...

Nobody ever concerned themselves with the effects of nukes on the American Southwest until well after there had been extensive testing. Bikini atoll was an absolute clusterfuck. The largest bomb ever developed was detonated by the Soviets out in the open in the Artic with no care whatsoever for environmental impact.

hell, we literally gave the marshall islanders cancer 'cause of all the bombs we tested (we gave them free healthcare to "make up for it")

[Neanderthaland]

I mean, not really...

Nobody ever concerned themselves with the effects of nukes on the American Southwest until well after there had been extensive testing. Bikini atoll was an absolute clusterfuck. The largest bomb ever developed was detonated by the Soviets out in the open in the Artic with no care whatsoever for environmental impact.

hell, we literally gave the marshall islanders cancer 'cause of all the bombs we tested (we gave them free healthcare to "make up for it")

Well they got Kaiju movies out of it too. So... we square?

[Alcala-Cordel]

I've never done anything illegal of any significance, if you can believe that. Never really had a reason to, and I'm fairly mellow irl.

Good for you. It was anarchists and boogaloo boys, both who have a hatred for law enforcement that was causing the majority of the damage. With the rest being apolitical psychopaths.

The boogaloo boys are insane but as far as race riots go it's sad that people are more upset about the riots than the injustices that continue to cause them.

[Shrillland]

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

"Without nukes we can't fight China over Taiwan" is a bad reason. Why not keep up the tough front as long as possible, but when the new land bridge is almost complete and the "reunification" of China is almost complete, admit you never were going to give American lives and treasure for such a stupid reason. Send ships and collect as many immigrants as want to come.

Also something you said earlier makes me think you don't know the difference between fallout, and radiation. You might want to update your knowledge on that.

Sure you still need nukes, but not to hold off China. They have more to lose (big cities) than you do, and a one or two hundred nukes. It's Russia, guys!

They have more cities but less population in terms of percentages to lose. China is 55% urbanised, only crossing over the 50% mark within the last five years. The US, by contrast, is 83% urbanised according to the last census, so even though China has more to lose in raw numbers, the US has far more to lose in the long term from losing cities than they do. Plus, cities like Beijing still have the old underground cities, reduced and decrepit they may be, but still suitable for their purpose.

[Kilobugya]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/547359-biden-to-establish-commission-to-study-expanding-supreme-court

Biden establishes commission to study expanding Supreme Court and judicial reform.

The Supreme Court is badly in need of reform. Justices serving for life is insane, they should have a set retirement age and maximum service duration. And its scope is way too broad, checking compatibility of laws/XO with the Constitution, mediating between states, and being the final jurisdiction for individual cases that's too much for the same court. It needs to be split.

As for the screams of court packing, with the totally abusive way the GOP rammed the last 3 Justices, it would be just making things fair game again.

[Kilobugya]

No. There is still a place for nuclear weapons. Without them, the amount of truly devastating wars in the 20th and 21st Centuries would have been far greater and far deadlier.

Perhaps but nuclear weapons are just too dangerous - it's only a matter of time before an insane president, a stupid accident or a terrorist organization throw us all into annihilation. It nearly happened twice (at least) already.

[Shrillland]

No. There is still a place for nuclear weapons. Without them, the amount of truly devastating wars in the 20th and 21st Centuries would have been far greater and far deadlier.

Perhaps but nuclear weapons are just too dangerous - it's only a matter of time before an insane president, a stupid accident or a terrorist organization throw us all into annihilation. It nearly happened twice (at least) already.

A terrorist organisation won't be responsible, a dirty bomb could never hope to reach the destructive power or even the fallout production that ICBMs can achieve. Even so, unilateral disarmament is suicide for any large nation that tries it, especially with the kinds of enemies that have to contend with.

[Shrillland]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/547359-biden-to-establish-commission-to-study-expanding-supreme-court

Biden establishes commission to study expanding Supreme Court and judicial reform.

The Supreme Court is badly in need of reform. Justices serving for life is insane, they should have a set retirement age and maximum service duration. And its scope is way too broad, checking compatibility of laws/XO with the Constitution, mediating between states, and being the final jurisdiction for individual cases that's too much for the same court. It needs to be split.

As for the screams of court packing, with the totally abusive way the GOP rammed the last 3 Justices, it would be just making things fair game again.

It's not too much, plenty of other nations have a single final court of appeals, otherwise the courts would contradict each other and leave legal messes behind. Adding justices we can do with a law, mandatory retirement and term limits would require an amendment, which we may well get if we escalate things enough to where the people as a whole want to stop the political games. That's why, despite my earlier misgivings, I ended up in favour of adding more justices since it could lead to such a clamour from the public.

[Kilobugya]

And the planet would be fine. The radiation wouldn’t actually last that long, the idea that it would last for centuries and the idea that it would lead to nuclear winter is sci-fi nonsense

Oh, the planet itself would be fine. Not its biosphere. You're right about the radiation not being the main problem - they would wreck havoc, sure, but not on planet scale. You're wrong about nuclear winter. About 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear blast on cities would send the Earth into a few years of nuclear winter that would wipe out most of crop production and natural habitats. It'll not bring about complete extinction of life, but it'll be a disaster at the scale of the extinction of the dinosaurs.

And the expression "sci-fi nonsense" doesn't mean much, actually lots of "sci-fi" (I'm speaking real sci-fi, not space-fantasy like Star Wars, which I do enjoy a lot, but it's not scifi) actually tends to teach a lot about potential futures.

[Kilobugya]

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.

But a "single nuke" won't happen, that's the whole basis of the nuclear deterrent strategy - if you use even a single one, your enemy will throw hundred at you, and you'll have to throw hundred back, leading the whole civilization to extinction.

[Kilobugya]

A terrorist organisation won't be responsible, a dirty bomb could never hope to reach the destructive power or even the fallout production that ICBMs can achieve.

I was more thinking of a terrorist organization managing to get hold over an ICBM or two. Or steal a nuke-equipped bomber or submarine. It'll be a hard feat to mount, but the more we have nukes around, the more likely one will manage to pull that off someday. We know that security is sometimes leaky, like about a decade ago a bomber flew for a training with real nukes while it should been fake ones.

Even so, unilateral disarmament is suicide for any large nation that tries it, especially with the kinds of enemies that have to contend with.

I would push more for multilateral disarmament than for unilateral one. But unilateral reduction of the number of nukes should also be done, that would lower risks and show the example.

[Kilobugya]

It's not too much, plenty of other nations have a single final court of appeals, otherwise the courts would contradict each other and leave legal messes behind.

Most countries have a different court for handling compatibility of laws (in general) with the Constitution and for handling final appeals of individual cases. There are no reasons to pack those two functions into the same court, it both gives way too much power to that court, and means it can only handle a tiny fraction of cases, both of which are severe problems.

[Kilobugya]

Retirement age, OK. I'd make it 75, maybe peg it to federal retirement age so it could be painlessly reduced in the future (lower retirement age being the most equitable way to see that younger people can get scarce jobs in the future).

I would rather have it at 65, cognitive decline is much more likely after, but that's an "implementation detail".

I disagree on splitting the court. Say a state law is struck down as unconstitutional by one branch of the Supreme Court. Does that precedent apply to the Federal Government branch? Likewise, findings on individual cases have to be applied to state and federal law. "Ranking" the new branches would make matters even worse.

I would have a single court handling all the constitutionality and only that and another handling individual cases, so no clashing jurisdiction/ranking.

A much bigger court, but not all sitting on the same case, seems the way to go. Perhaps even enforcing balance: justices would be assigned to Team Red or Team Blue, according to which President appointed them, then for each case a large bench could be drawn at random from each team. Equal numbers does require that some cases will be deadlocked, but is that even a disaster?

The much bigger court with random selection for each case could work. But not the "team red"/"team blue". First we really don't want to make bipartism even more anchored. And then it's not like the two parties should always be equal. The GOP is the minority. It has lost the popular vote everytime since 1992 except for 2004 and that was because people "rallied to the flag" after the shock of 9/11. The minority should not have as much say as the majority and be able to impose its reactionary views on younger generations. That the GOP, being the minority since 20 years, controls 6 Justices on 9 shows how much the system is rigged, but enforcing strict partisan equality isn't the way to fix it.

[Page]

Even you're too radical to get elected.

Not really but it sounds cool when you say it like that

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

Indicating to the other side that they might refuse to launch a retaliatory strike is a violation of the duty, the President should do everything possible to convince everyone in the world that they will retaliate. But when the nukes are already flying, there is no point.

[Blargoblarg]

No. There is still a place for nuclear weapons. Without them, the amount of truly devastating wars in the 20th and 21st Centuries would have been far greater and far deadlier.

Perhaps but nuclear weapons are just too dangerous - it's only a matter of time before an insane president, a stupid accident or a terrorist organization throw us all into annihilation. It nearly happened twice (at least) already.

A lot more than twice. We've had way too many close calls with nuclear weapons in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... lose_calls

[Kilobugya]

Perhaps but nuclear weapons are just too dangerous - it's only a matter of time before an insane president, a stupid accident or a terrorist organization throw us all into annihilation. It nearly happened twice (at least) already.

A lot more than twice. We've had way too many close calls with nuclear weapons in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... lose_calls

Oh, indeed, you're right there were much more of them than I was aware of. Sure most were in the Cold War era, but it's still terrifying how close we are to annihilation...

[Kilobugya]

Interesting that none are at all recent. It's a Cold War thing. 1994 Norway/Russia does look pretty nasty, but I doubt even Yeltsin would have gone all-in for a single missile.

Well, Cold War is more or less restarting, with all the hostility and saber-rattling between USA and Russia those days. And "gone all-in for a single missile" is at the core of "nuclear dissuasion" strategy : « if you send even one nuke against me, I wipe you out completely ».

[Washington Resistance Army]

And the planet would be fine. The radiation wouldn’t actually last that long, the idea that it would last for centuries and the idea that it would lead to nuclear winter is sci-fi nonsense

Oh, the planet itself would be fine. Not its biosphere. You're right about the radiation not being the main problem - they would wreck havoc, sure, but not on planet scale. You're wrong about nuclear winter. About 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear blast on cities would send the Earth into a few years of nuclear winter that would wipe out most of crop production and natural habitats. It'll not bring about complete extinction of life, but it'll be a disaster at the scale of the extinction of the dinosaurs.

And the expression "sci-fi nonsense" doesn't mean much, actually lots of "sci-fi" (I'm speaking real sci-fi, not space-fantasy like Star Wars, which I do enjoy a lot, but it's not scifi) actually tends to teach a lot about potential futures.

Nuclear Winter very likely isn't real. It was a political concept from the start and doesn't hold much weight in models starting in the 90's onwards and events that should have produced localized Nuclear Winter style effects (ie the Kuwait Oil Fires) did no such thing.