621–630 of 894 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately America has just shown us that it too can advance a wildly inappropriate and simply stupid individual to the highest levels of power.
But then he got replaced 4 years later. Unlike what happened in Russia.
This has been a real reckoning for me, as somebody who has historically been very pro-nuclear. Quite simply, humanity is too good at screwing things up to harness such a fundamentally powerful and dangerous source of power. It requires a commitment to long lasting peace and stability that we're just not capable of.
This touches on why I think humanity will not survive for much longer. Global warming continues to be a civilization-ending level threat, and yet it continues to be more or less ignored. Vast swathes of the population believe that their egos can determine reality, no matter the actual physical reality they so hubristically ignore. > we’re not capable of I don’t think so, either. This sentiment tends to be met by the…
Global warming is not a civilization-ending threat. Even nuclear war is not a civilization-ending threat, outside a few places in the Northern hemisphere. I could be wrong about both of these claims. But you could be as well, and you're taking an extremely pessimistic view based on what you know, which is not the whole picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every country has its propaganda and lies, but they're generally couched in half-truths. It's truly remarkable how the Russian flavor of misinformation sounds just like a pathological liar making up wild bullshit that nobody could possibly take seriously. That's been a tradition for decades, as far as I know.
I mean… Trump was lying about how many electoral votes he got. It was easily verifiable. Also such a stupid lie because he did have enough electoral votes to win the election anyway. But still! He fabricated that number. He was also truly in pathological liar territory.
That's not a strategic lie, that's a pathological lie. That's someone who simply cannot tell the truth.
This has been a real reckoning for me, as somebody who has historically been very pro-nuclear. Quite simply, humanity is too good at screwing things up to harness such a fundamentally powerful and dangerous source of power. It requires a commitment to long lasting peace and stability that we're just not capable of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the reactors are on, destroying any of the infrasture around it can be devastating. The reactors need external power to operate. If external power disappears, the reactors now need emergency power from diesel gen sets. If those fail due to any reason, the reactors will probably melt down - unless they have already been off for quite a while (~weeks would be necessary). If the reactors melt down, the VVER has both…
That's not correct. It only takes a couple of seconds to shut down a reactor. https://qr.ae/pGdkkv
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately America has just shown us that it too can advance a wildly inappropriate and simply stupid individual to the highest levels of power.
But then he got replaced 4 years later. Unlike what happened in Russia.
He could have left a great legacy, but his addiction to power has become his ruin. And quite possibly that of Ukraine and Russia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep in mind that you are likely seeing the Russian propaganda through a filter of western propaganda and interpretation.
With the internet and Google translate, you can easily go read for yourself. And it’s still pretty nutty with no western filter applied. The accidentally published victory unification speech is particularly crazy: https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20...
The idea that you are somehow immune to this is unsustainable - I'm sure avid Putin fans feel the same, after all they have access to Google too.
It's just that we are privileged to live in a relatively free societies, where bias is self imposed groupthink as opposed to mandated by the government.
For an extreme version of this in action, you can see the early reporting in the American media of the Iraq invasion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is war between two nuclear states, so nuclear weapon will be used eventually. Ukraine is not a nuclear state as it does not have nuclear weapons.
We promised to not have it in return for not being invaded, so technically we are a nuclear state without any weapons present at this moment (as far as publicly known). Since we have both technological expertise and practical means (from uranium ores to delivery systems), it’s a matter of time.
The former nukes belonged to the USSR and only they had the codes to arm them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the meantime I fear he is indeed that crazy. He repeatedly stated that his goal is to wipe out Ukraine at any costs. He is a like a little child that doesn't get his way and then blindly hits at everything in his reach.
Can you post a link to a video him saying that, I never heard it
As always, apply the Falsifiability principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That opinion is contrary to over 70 years of geopolitical and military strategic thinking.
I’m no expert, but my understanding is that thinking was based around a tactical nuke being used on US or Russian forces, leading to escalation and eventual use of strategic weapons, not against a non-nuclear power like Ukraine. AFAICT, the person you were responding to wasn’t talking about a nuke being used against NATO forces.
If "tactical" nukes are a thing why hasn't anyone used them since 1945? Seems like they could have been handy in Syria or Afghanistan. There's no shortage of examples of nuclear powers going to war with non-nuclear non-NATO countries in the last 77 years. None of them involved nukes in any capacity.