AN/FPS-24 Radar Tower, Mt. Umunhum, Los Gatos, CA, 2024.
Several additional pixels at https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattblaze/53796724938
#photography
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
16 points (100.0% liked)
Photography
1 readers
74 users here now
All things photography. Share your own original photos, your questions, your inspiration.
Rules
Share your own original photography. No NSFW images. Be Nice.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@CStamp @fivetonsflax @60sRefugee @mattblaze @nyrath @simplenomad I mean, yes and no. Ratified treaties do have weight, even with impulsive executives. Public opinion also does mean something. International pressure against more nations developing these weapons means fewer possible uses.
Nothing is perfect but progress is worthwhile.
See also our relative and ongoing success in reducing chemical and biological weapon stockpiles and use
@njvack @fivetonsflax @60sRefugee @mattblaze @nyrath @simplenomad Ratified treaties have no weight with someone like Spanky.
@CStamp @njvack @fivetonsflax @60sRefugee @nyrath @simplenomad One way in which treaties matter is they affect stockpile and rage of weapons he has to work with. Things take time to ramp up (and down). The president can't, for example, snap his or her fingers and double the number of land-based ICBMs overnight.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] He already has enough rage weapons to do damage. This time, it's less likely folk in charge of the military will care more about the country and world and more likely to be ass kissers. :(
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Yes, the president is, of course, enormously powerful.
I'm just saying that those powers are limited by what they come in with. If, for example, the US had completely eliminated its nuclear arsenal somehow, it's unlikely the a there's much that could be done in a four year term to reverse that.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Even just restarting nuclear testing is far from a “snap your fingers” kind of thing. Is it doable in four years, with a supportive Congress? Probably. But it’s expensive and Congress may not be as supportive as you hope.
If all that infrastructure had been maintained instead of mothballed it would be way easier.