• mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I realize this is Lemmy so it is a race to make the most edgelord anti-US comment. I would be remiss if I didn’t remind people of the shocking naivety of this mentality.

    It seems many on this board believe that the US would get destroyed, western values would be undermined and some magic communist utopia would just naturally arise the world over in the aftermath. Wrong.

    The conflict being described here would be a world war in which multiple large scale nuclear strikes would be deployed. Whatever country you are shitposting from wouldn’t be immune from first order effects, let alone follow-on effects of such a disasterous exchange. Millions would die. You would be better off perishing in the initial salvos than struggling to survive in whatever Mad Max scenario your country devolves into in the resulting hellscape of nuclear fallout, zero international deterrence, likely cessation of emergency services on a local level, and all non local supply chains and communication channels being broken.

    So, be careful what you wish for, and don’t hasten the day.

  • diamat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    “I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”

    What kind of reality does this guy live in? Like every adversary he mentions has either adopted a “No First Use” Policy or officially states that nuclear weapons are only to be used when the very existence of the state is threatened via a conventional military force or when being attacked by nuclear weapons. Contrast this to the US which “‘reserves the right to use’ nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict” or the UK which reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against “rogue states” (source: wikipedia article detailing all the above mentioned first use policies). How can you claim to have any moral superiority when your fucking bloc has these murderous policies in place? The western bloc has enshrined first use into its official policy and then this guy claims that only the adversaries of the West are determined to use nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy is beyond me.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not to mention that US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, and they didn’t do it for any military purpose. They dropped them on civilian population to show USSR the level of depravity they were capable of.

    • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      US is the first and only country to ever use an atomic bomb. And not just one bomb: two. So of course we wouldn’t launch a preemptive strike, right?

  • r00ty@kbin.life
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”

    See. I don’t think the deterrent was ever meant to be a response to tactical nuclear weapons. They were meant to be a way to make sure that if World ending strategic nuclear weapons were fired against cities, that the response would be absolute.

    I wholesale believe that western countries with strategic nuclear weapons would return fire against an attack in our direction. Just as it looked in wargames.

    No we’re not going to destroy the world if Russia or any other adversary uses tactical nuclear weapons. We have much more proportionate responses.

    Or, maybe I’m just misreading it?

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’d like to think not. I’d like to think that any NATO nuclear enabled nation would only act in response to strategic nuclear weapons deployed against a NATO ally. But, I guess we’ll only know if/when we get there.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Given the unhinged behavior of the US historically, and being the only nation to use nuclear weapons, I don’t see why you’d expect any restraint.

  • deepbIue@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    3 months ago

    As much as I like shitting on the US, I think all of the comments here are forgetting that this wouldn’t be a 1v3. It would be a world war. There would be no winners.

    • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      And that Palantir is an MIC contractor. They would have this outlook because it would keep them busy. The reality of such a scenario is far more unrealistic.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      There would be an immense toll, but it would mean the destruction of the US, Israel, NATO, and neoliberalism generally, which I think means there is also room for optimism. If I may gesture towards Mark Twain, there are two Reigns of Terror here, and though we have reason to fear the latter one, it will not last as long or kill as many as the former one that it puts an end to. If there is not a nuclear holocaust, anyway

    • FakeNewsForDogs [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, it would be cataclysmic. In the longer term though, I would argue that just about everyone on the planet would be a winner if the US empire were finally put down. You can’t really overstate how much of an impediment the US is to global human welfare and development.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        okay, but the US is kiiiinda terrible, but if the US loses here then china/russia/iran win…

        so its not like the US just goes away; the US is replaced by full autocratic

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Uhhhh. Are you aware of just how happy the people of China are with their government? Harvard conducted a 15-year research project and found 95% of China approved of their government. I would LOVE to live in a place where we all felt like the government was actually doing we wanted to.

          And to call it autocratic is just ridiculous. Autocracy is a very specific form of government. Every state you mentioned is a literal Republic.

  • Sleepless One@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    “I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”

    There’s a moral disparity alright, but it’s not the US who has the moral high ground.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      You aren’t very bright, are you?

      As an American, I am constantly opposing war mongering in my country. They’re are many times when I’ve wanted to simply leave (most notably when Trump first took office). But we can’t leave… The reasonable people need to stay, because the military the US has right now is fucking insane.

      Here’s a graph to spell things out for you:

      If you want positive change, stop dreaming about the destruction of countries, and start working to change the hearts and minds of those residing in influential countries.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Seems like you’re the one who’s not very bright. Spending doesn’t directly translate into anything tangible. The US military industrial complex is a vehicle for sucking up your taxes and putting them back into the hands of the oligarchs. The incentives it has is to produce overdesigned and expensive weapons that require huge amounts of maintenance in small quantities. This is how you end up with shit like F35. Meanwhile, Russia spending a fraction of what US does can produce three times the artillery shells that all western countries can combined https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Especially glaring examples is actually UK which have bigger budget than Russia in this graph, yet they admitted they would last 3 weeks in the war as in Ukraine, they have some really embarrassing public fuckup around every month, like the one where they send barely armed ships against Yemen or how their carriers break all the time, and they constantly shrink their army and navy and still have problems with getting enough basic personnel.

  • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m kinda feeling the “c’mon, go see the titanic” meme, but regarding a total war that Amerika has literally no hope of winning. Just one of those countries routinely low-tech kicks the shit out of our forces without the war games having to get railroaded by the peckerwoods just to “prove” an ‘Allied’ victory; what the fuck do they think tackling Russia and China too will accomplish?