I think I see. To your knowledge, does any nuclear power operate in this way? I’m only slightly familiar with the US system, and I just checked the UK and from what I’m reading, both countries pretty much have the president/PM as having ultimate authority.

While checking, I also read that the UK’s submarine deterrents don’t need launch codes from the PM at all, and rely solely on military discipline to prevent an illicit launch. Not entirely germane to this talk, but it’s an interesting difference - and it’s certainly less bound up with executive power.

It’s never, but also that

I will say, I got my current impression from Hardcore History. The logical insanity episode - I’m open to the idea that it’s wrong, but I’m not just going to switch views because it’s being called cold war propaganda. Can you throw me a bone here?

Many laughs

This is fake, right?

…I thought we were just having a friendly chat up until now. I know this is a touchy subject, but Lemmy is too small to mistreat one another over differences of opinion.

I’m only pointing out that nukes are fundamentally a threat to the rule of law. We can’t invent a world without them just yet, but we should at least think of them as a systemic threat to the world we’re trying to create

Back in colonial times it was very feasible to keep the executive in check. Nowadays it is a technological fact that the executive needs nuclear authority just to be in a position to make a timely counterstrike effort.

At least, this was the dogma last I checked, maybe there is enough interdiction capability now to change this dynamic. I would be delighted to learn otherwise, but given the necessity of secrecy in these things any evidence must be compelling.

That said - Until the logic of MAD ceases to prevail, there is an insane sort of game theory rationale for an executive with extensive powers, regrettably. It’s hard to see how to get past the eventual nuclear war scenario without a one world government. With nukes we are walking a tightrope, but we cannot reasonably expect to do so indefinitely.

You could calculate Pi with this Venn diagram

It’s a fine idea and despite being a longshot it’s probably the only way anything good ever happens in America again, but a word to the wise:

You go into a revolution with the people you’ve got, not just the people who have their head on straight. The ideological mix of America currently isn’t the group I’d pick for outlining the underpinnings of a new republic.

Not saying a revolt is a bad idea even, just making the point that we live in an imperfect world, and politics make for strange bedfellows. The sheer geophysical fact of North America means the rift between urban and rural can never be truly reconciled.

Okay I like this answer. Where do I sign up for focused backlash?

I just feel like… what are they distracting us from? He’s not even sworn in yet

Hard not to feel like the real motive is to normalize territorial aggression. Sure it’s land, and when the ice melts it’ll be useful, but nobody behind these policies will live to benefit from that.