this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
166 points (96.1% liked)

World News

32327 readers
964 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 67 points 5 months ago (13 children)

Already have more nukes than every other country, this is literally pointless. After a certain point having more nukes just becomes a hat on a hat.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Oh there is a point. Hint: Who does the US Government pay to maintain/create it's nuclear arsenal?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Private contractors probably, it's all a big bonanza for a few rich people to get richer I'm sure. Just paying for more hats on hats.

But never underestimate how dog brained these people are, they probably actually believe this makes us more secure lol

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

General Electric unless it’s changed

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

The US Department of Energy…

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Have you ever played TF2? Because a hat on a hat makes sense, from a certain point of view.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago

This is bad for you. It's also bad for me. And everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" Let's build more world ending bombs! That'll show 'em.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

they are building, fewer, better bombs, to replace the old ones that qualify for AARP/social security.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago (18 children)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Are we in another cold war?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago

Spoiler, we never stopped the first one.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We are still in a cold war, only now it's more complicated because more countries have nukes...including North Korea which is kind of a wildcard.

Check out Nuclear War by Annie Jacobsen. It's a well-researched and horrifying scenario where deterrence fails because N Korea launches on the US. it takes you step-by-step through the decision process our government would take in response. Its gripping and pretty damn terrifying and shows just how delicate the whole situation is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

If this topic is your bag, I'm guessing you've also read Jeffrey Lewis's book on the topic: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/books/

A great read, if very slightly outdated. Could still represent a possible future if Trump returns to power, or perhaps even if he doesn't. Either way, Arms Control Wonk podcast is an entertaining and informative listen for anyone remotely interested in this topic.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Just recommended the audio book to my library. Thanks.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

That looks good, got it added to my read list. Thx!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I have to wonder why this comment would be downvoted. It's because I mentioned the T word isn't it. Sigh.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

Does anyone else have dreams about nuclear war on a regular basis? Cause I do, and I don't particularly care for it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

lmao tens of millions of people are starving in US right now, but the priority is to build more nukes 🤡

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

They have high energy content!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Well shit.

What the fuck is a GRAVITY BOMB???

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What the fuck is a GRAVITY BOMB

Simply means it is a free-fall bomb. They are cheaper to make as they don't require an entire ICBM to deliver.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

nah bro, it's a black hole bomb that destroys the solar system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Just a bomb that is dropped from storage to fall in free-fall. Aka, a bomb with literally nothing else, the simplest possible bomb. An alternative name (which is better imo) is a "Dumb Bomb".

Gravity bomb just sounds so much more extraordinary than it actually is.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

China: has like 300 nuclear weapons, none of them stationed outside their country. Has no forward military bases from which to stage or launch attacks, has limited forward radar visibility of incoming attacks. Has a couple SSBM subs which likely operate entirely in the south China sea from which it can launch. Wants to expand to 1000 by 2030.

Russia: Has over 4000 warheads, most aging. Has no meaningful forward military bases outside their country for staging attacks on the west. Has no meaningful forward radar visibility of incoming attacks from beyond its borders. Has a few SSBM subs from which it can launch.

US: Has over 4000 warheads, many aging. Has many hidden, classified, constantly operating SSBM submarines which regularly intentionally cruise to the north Atlantic (near Russia), the south Pacific (near China), and a variety of other locations. Has ground-launched missiles, an air delivery system. Has world class sonar (included super-sensitive listening stations bolted to the bedrock of the east and west coasts) and aggressive drone campaigns to hunt and constantly track Chinese and Russian missile subs to allow them a first kill. Has forward warning radar systems positioned thousands of miles from its borders in northern Canada, in Europe, in the Pacific on island chains. In addition has a massive, the most massive spy satellite network in operation constantly watching other powers in incredible detail. Has a space force dedicated to among other things sabotaging Chinese and Russian space assets with kill switches or remote disable explosives which could be used in aggression to blind their enemy first. Of all major world powers will have the most warning and most time to react decisively in case of a full scale launch and attempted sneak first strike on them by either Russia or China. Stations nuclear weapons with allies in "sharing" agreements where the US has final say on their use and launch in countries from the UK to mainland Europe near Russia to Turkey, is considering such an agreement with South Korea right on China's border.

But tell me again how the US is backed into a corner in this situation and has no choice but to build more warheads and pour hundreds of billions that could feed, cloth, shelter, and provide healthcare to its people into new delivery systems which will fatten and enrich defense contractors to the tune of hundreds of billions of overage costs if not trillions for systems that may or may not even work thanks to contractor greed and sloppiness.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Someone REALLY needs to put America in its place. I’m sick of this ‘we rule the entire world, and there’s nothing you can do about it’ attitude we have here. It’s disgusting.

Also: Trump pulls out of our nuclear agreement with Russia, and this is how Biden’s government responds? Escalation? They seems to have similar ideals.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Shroedinger's Russian nuclear arsenal. When there's a story about risking escalation, libs tell me it's fine because Russia doesn't have the money to maintain its nukes, so it'd only be a "limited" nuclear exchange. When this story comes out, the libs tell me that Russia has a much larger and better maintained nuclear stockpile, so it's only necessary for the US to spend more on it to catch up. It's sort of the same way that Russia simultaneously is on the verge of defeat, yet also has the intention and capability to conquer all of Europe, like Hitler, if we don't stop him here.

The enemy is both strong and weak, and you never know which one it's gonna be.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The thing is countries can change. Russia was ill equipped to fight a war against a prepared equipped country. Supplies were missing because people sold off supplies they thought were never gong to be needed. Now they know they need that equipment and the countries economy is on a war footing.

Look at how much a difference being prepared made for Ukraine the recent invasion compared to the earlier invasion of Crimea.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

I'm not talking about changes over time, talking about things I've seen recently on here regarding Russia's current status, in response to news stories and comments discussing the danger of escalation going nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Biden is doing everything in his power to eliminate the argument that trump is worse/less responsible/more bellicose.

As a trans person, I still hope genocide joe wins for my own personal safety. but I'm also aware that safety provided by dems is tenuous at best. Especially if we decide to fry the planet over Taiwan and Crimea.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

As a fellow trans person, I don't think Biden can guarantee my safety because I'm in a red state. He seems to be allowing red state anti-trans legislation without much pushback. At best he might not make the problem even worse, but he won't protect us.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you want Joe to win, I'd probably stop using that label for awhile. Make it easier to, y'know, do that thing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I won't engage in genocide denial

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Just saying, it may be wise to engage in acts of patience given the risk of the current climate. Hold him accountable after we get over the current hurdle. Like, keep it in your back pocket. We should hold advantages where we can and come together. That's all. A sorta strategic focus to eliminate issues one at a time without dividing energy or people. Because I think the larger opinion is the same, we just differ on what to focus on first.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

........I'm sure its nothing /s

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The comments on Friday from Pranay Vaddi, a senior director of the National Security Council, were the most explicit public warning yet that the United States was prepared to shift from simply modernizing its arsenal to expanding it.

Mr. Vaddi, speaking at the annual meeting of the Arms Control Association, a group that advocates limits on nuclear weapons, confirmed what officials have been saying in private conversations and closed congressional testimony for more than a year.

Fifteen years ago, President Barack Obama outlined a vision of moving toward a world without nuclear weapons, and he took steps to reduce their role in American strategy and defenses.

While the nation’s nuclear complexes were improved and made safer, and old weapons were swapped out for more reliable or updated versions, the United States insisted it was only “modernizing” its arsenal, not expanding it.

“Absent a change in the trajectory of the adversary arsenal, we may reach a point in the coming years where an increase from current deployed numbers is required, and we need to be fully prepared to execute if the president makes that decision,” he said.

The failure of Russia and China to engage in meaningful negotiations, Mr. Vaddi said, was “forcing the United States and our close allies and partners to prepare for a world where nuclear competition occurs without numerical constraints.”


The original article contains 969 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›