321–330 of 389 posts
[flagged]
I kind of agree, but we have way too many bombs just floating around. How many nukes does a country need to have readied in order for mutually assured destruction to be relevant? I feel like 100 would be enough to deter any aggression, and if two countries unload their full arsenal at each other would not end life on earth. Russia and US have closer to 10,000 between them which could pretty much end humanity on any d…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why mention Castro?
Because the person I responded to said that if everyone has nukes we are safer because of MAD but if Castro had nukes he would have used them! Fanatical leaders don't give a damn about MAD
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't manage to keep up with Republican party machinations - please could you explain why the Bush-era staff won't be there if Trump is elected again?
Because most have left, either retired or disassociated from Trump and his movement. Trump's running as hard as he can (which isn't very, he isn't convincing) from the proudly published (and terrifying!) Project 2025 stuff, but they aren't running from him , and there are reasons for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of this is a legitimate casus belli in any sense of the term. You’re suggesting we ought to take seriously the geopolitical equivalent of “he looked at me funny”.
I would you say the Cuban missile crisis was made up by the Kennedy admin? The establishment was ready to war if the missiles were not removed. Being in our “backyard” and sphere of influence (LatAm) we didn’t take to it too kindly.
But there’s still a number of things about this situation that make the comparison flimsy. The relationship between the west and Russia was - and actually still is - significantly less tense than the relationship between the Soviets and the west during the Cold War, for one.
But moreover, the way everything went down was very different.
In the CMC, the Soviets installed their missiles, the US caught wind of this, and pursued a diplomatic solution. The public was, generally, made aware of what was going on and what was at stake.
Ukraine was not made a member of NATO - it hadn’t even applied. At no point did Russia even rattle any sabres, offer red lines, or pursue diplomacy. Russia built up its forces along the border in secret and launched a surprise invasion. From the jump they’ve been offering shifting explanations for the “special military operation” - is it about NATO expansion or “de-Nazification”? - which is one reason why we shouldn’t take any of those explanations especially seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would you say the Cuban missile crisis was made up by the Kennedy admin? The establishment was ready to war if the missiles were not removed. Being in our “backyard” and sphere of influence (LatAm) we didn’t take to it too kindly.
I would say that the Cuban Missile Crisis, indeed, would not have constituted a good reason to invade Cuba. US foreign policy during the Cold War was often pretty indefensible. But there’s still a number of things about this situation that make the comparison flimsy. The relationship between the west and Russia was - and actually still is - significantly less tense than the relationship between the Soviets and the we…
To be fair, without saying that their position is a defensible one- they've been pretty vocal about Ukraine not becoming aligned with the West for almost 20 years now if not longer, and politicians in the West have been vocal about the exact opposite for at least as long. I see people saying online that what's happening now was completely irrational and unexpected but that's not really true. We know it's a sore point for them and have been goading them with a "will we won't we" over a clear red line they've drawn for a long while now. https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html
Now that it appears the world is once again creeping towards nuclear stand-off this time with a very large non-zero chance that a country pushed towards existential crisis will not hesitate to detonate a nuclear device, it makes the people justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuking as completely deranged.
I urge y'all to visit Hiroshima and see first hand the horrors of nuclear terrorism. When you attack civilians directly, its terrorism no matter what side of the fence you are on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please make your substantive points without name-calling and flamebait? We've had to ask you this before! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What's name calling?
From the guidelines: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
This comment is simply stating historical facts. It's not unsubstantive. The actions of the US military in this particular case are relevant to this story. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II caused an estimated 140,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 74,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, according to some sources.
Also, your account has been posting comments like this a lot, where by "like this" I mean low-information and high-inflammation. This is not what HN is for and undermines what it is for, so it you could please stop this, we'd appreciate it. You're still welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully, of course, but it you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules (such as avoiding snark and flamebait), we'd appreciate it.
[flagged]
That’s because he is manipulating you with scare tactics, much like virtually every other topic. Great Depression 2! Dog eaters! Rapists! Every other sentence is an appeal to fear.