That oompa lumpa of ours just wants to drop a nuke. I vote we not and tell him we did. Also all of his press conferences and appearances henceforth will be accompanied by a 90’s sitcom style laugh track.
Jokes and laugh tracks are how humans normalize things, if anything it needs to begin with ’attention bajoran workers’ and some eerie music.
We could just show him videos of nuclear tests and he would probably fall for it. Fucking idiot.
US reportedly also forgets the arithmetic of AD and MD efficiency, and the fact that there are countries capable of nuking it in response, and in case it uses a nuke against Iran those will multiply like mushrooms after a rain.
If they use a nuke on Iran then Russia will start popping a bunch of them on Ukraine. Maybe that’s Putin’s plan all along, get Trump to drop a nuke so it becomes a free for all.
Anyways, hope you know where your nuclear shelter is and you like canned food and iodine tablets.
I live in Russia, in Moscow, in a kinda golden (in Stalin’s time) place, so the shelter is right under me, its ventilation shaft exit is near the playground.
The problem is - nobody knows how the hell do you get in.
I do like canned food. I even had a small stockpile in 2022 when I thought things had gotten real and it’s time to prepare. Have eaten through it.
If it becomes a free for all, though, hiding from the physical effects will be easier than hiding from the social ones.
You should start taking notes where D6 is and how to enter, so you can take out the Dark Ones when they appear twenty years down the line.
I even know of one possible entrance, but the building above it I hate with passion, I’d need a flamethrower.
What do those acronyms mean
Air defense, missile defense
Pakistan saying they would nuke Israel if Israel nuked Iran probably was the only thing holding Israel back from pulling the trigger. If there was ever a group of people who should never be permitted to have nuclear weapons, its the Israelis.
Indeed, on Tuesday Trump said, “I don’t care” that the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that Iran isn’t building a nuclear weapon, according to his own top intelligence official.
It is so odd that this info being publicized…
They are trying to scare Iran into giving into what they want.
He thinks this is a genius plan.
It’s stupid.
He will chicken out and give the nukes to them… And call it the most brilliant thing anyone has ever done
they just want to test how much public outcry there would be
Nuking them to prevent them getting nukes? Why do you think they want them in the first place? Now they will want them even harder. Should try to bribe their way into getting access to US nukes, just need a white supremacist asshole techbro to do the talking and they’ll give you whatever you want.
Unleashing megagodzilla just to stop godzilla. So smart you couldnt believe it. Very rational and very cool
Over the series’ history, the films have reflected the social and political climate in Japan. In the original film, Godzilla was an allegory for the effects of nuclear weapons, and the consequences that such weapons might have on Earth
I would have to think using nukes on a country that doesn’t have nuclear power would be a slam dunk illegal order. Like, I mean, if he says to do it, the guys that make that happen, top to bottom, should say, “No, this is an illegal order, and i am not going to follow it.”
If such an order is followed and nothing is forthcoming from some checking force in the federal government, I think i may have lost faith in humanity as a concept. This is the great filter. Can we be trusted as a species?
Upfront: it should be obvious that no sane person wants us to drop a nuke or thinks there’s any connotation of “okay” to any aspect of it.
Why do you think it would be an illegal order? There are very clear rules on what makes an order legal or not and, horribly, attacking a nation that poses no real threat isn’t on the list. What nations we attack is a policy matter, and the rules are very clear that the military doesn’t get a say in policy.
Explicitly targeting civilians for a strike on a city is where the line would be. Targeting something else in the city and deciding the civilians are acceptable collateral damage is right on the line. Legally, it’s entirely unambiguously evil morally.There are checks that keep the president from unilaterally launching a nuke. Unfortunately, the intent of those is to ensure the president is legally competent and actually the president, not to ensure he’s wise or rational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hering
The system has been explicitly designed to minimize the risk of conscience preventing a launch. Issue training orders where the firing crews have no idea if it’s real or not. Keep them on two week rotations where they don’t have access to the outside world so they wouldn’t know. Specifically select for people who will follow the order because it’s validcand legal, without considering the greater context. People who are legitimately confused but ultimately unconcerned with protests against them specifically doing what they do, including clergy from their own religion. (Actual story of an ICBM operators reaction to nuns protesting and attempting to block access to the missile site he was stationed at)
There is no doubt in my mind that if the order were given and the VP and cabinet didn’t remove him, that the order would be followed.
I suppose what I mean is that he doesn’t just have a big red button on his desk labeled Iran that he can press when he chooses.
We’ve stood up a system over many years, and he’s just barrelled through every norm/law/etc. up to and including having his sentence reduced to 0 on felonies, simply because he’s a politician. If we cannot protect ourselves from this man launching a nuclear weapon, or even hold him responsible, then we don’t deserve to survive beyond our planet and the resulting catastrophic collapse of society may be the best thing for the universe overall.
If we cannot […] hold him responsible
Is him launching (or ordering to launch) a nuke considered as an official act? Just asking…
I mean, technically, Congress has to declare wars. But no president cared about this since WW2
People think everything they don’t like is illegal.
Don’t get me wrong, it should be illegal to do a preemptive nuclear strike, it just sadly isn’t.
It might not be feasible for the entire chain to have the information needed to make that call, but there is definitely someone in military authority positioned to know if it’s defensive or offensive, and that person should be both allowed and obligated to refuse the order if it’s an offensive strike.
Morality and the law may not be equivalent, but it would certainly be more convenient if they were closer.
Don’t worry guys we’re not going to war.
Too late, we’ve been at war for a long time.
Well im not.
Bring your steam decks
Lan party?
We’re playing Counter Strike, and later, you’re in Counter Strike.
Dumbo with the big ears is pulling the strings of the empty-headed Scarecrow.
Seems to me, like there is EXTREMELY, next to zero, or perhaps zero reason to ever HAVE to use a nuke. Nuke’s should be a defensive deterrent, not a first choice. I’m sure the military has plenty of other options.
If you are not ready to use a nuke ever, it stops being a deterrent. Game theory.
But this situation is not the kind where a nuke is used as a deterrent. If Israel was saying they’re sorry and asking for ceasefire, while Iranians would be absolutely destroying what remains of it and not listening, then yes.
Or, if Iran had a nuke and Israelis were succeeding in destroying Iran.
But neither are true.
There are 13k ton bombs that can penetrate pretty deep dropped by B2 bombers, which might be headed to the ME right now.
The B2s will be flown into Diego Garcia. The only time they will be in the middle east is if they are over a target. Hopefully they stay in Diego Garcia.
I’m sure the military has plenty of other options.
The other option is the GBU-57 bunker buster bombs, which is what they used - but a single bomb like that isn’t capable of reaching deep enough on its own. So they had to use a significant portion of their stockpile to achieve their objective that way.
The alternative would have been to drop in special forces and have them break into the heavily defended facility the traditional way.
Oh honey, read some of the norbert weiner type of nuke cult guys, and their Soviet counterparts.
This is a rabbit hole nobody wants anybody to ho down.
hole nobody wants anybody to ho down.
If this series of murderous far right zionist military adventures proves anything, its that American politicians will ho themselves down any hole.
And have before, but some of them are…
Don’t let Kegseth drunk drop it
Shit who’s this vputin guy in our group chat?
Putin needs to draw a red line ASAP. If USA thinks they can go there they need to be nuked in return.
Putin would be more than happy for the US to drop a nuke in Iran since it gives him free reign to use nuclear artillery in Ukraine.
Removed by mod
It would mean profit, but it would also mean Putin scared for his life trying to find alternative solutions. Since I’m in Russia, I don’t like the idea. Those solutions would probably mean even more total lockdown of everything.
Sorry the be pedantic, but why not link the original source?
Since it’s their inside sources.
Especially, because the original article states „Trump is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow and the possibility was not presented by defense secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Dan Caine in meetings in the White House situation room, two people familiar with the matter said.“ while the linked article here implies that this option is considered.
Exactly. Hence the importance of linking the original source…
I can’t understand why anyone would believe anything a tangerine tyrant says he will or won’t do, until we see it happen or not.
Did you even read the article you linked? The fuckin “source” you got your panties in a bunch over arent even cited beyond, “according to people familiar with the deliberations.” They dont even say its their own source in their own article you dolt.
To expand on Shrubbery, you can read the Guardian’s editorial standards and the base ones they follow: https://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/08/EditorialGuidelinesAug2011.pdf
according to people familiar with the…
In journalism, this is common lingo for “our journalists personally communicated with sources (more that one) that wish to remain anonymous.” It’s the guardian’s legwork and integrity for shielding anon sources here, not them copying it from some other site (which they’d link if they did).
“according to people familiar with the deliberations.”
Afaik that is synonymous/how journalist say “inside source”.
Yeah no hipocrisy and double standards whatsoever /s
