That’s fine, but I’d note that 10-12 other countries are ready at all times to retaliate with nuclear weapons, so not sure why you singled out the US. The US has not championed offensive use of nuclear weapons since maybe 70 years ago. The only countries that have lately are Pakistan, India, NK and Russia.
Yes, 79 years ago. No US politician has proposed attacking anyone with nuclear weapons since maybe the 50s. So… who has? Hmm, Russia. maybe we could discuss that.
First strike policy. No US politican needs to “propose” anything so long as that doctrine is in place, it’s already a constant threat to any country that dares question US hegemony.
And what the Russians are saying is “If you nuke us we’ll nuke you back” which is an entirely different thing.
Nope, that’s not what they said. Obviously people here are not discussing anything in good faith, so it’s fairly useless, but Russian state media said if NATO interfered with their illegal and immoral massacre in Ukraine, they just might have to use nuclear weapons. Show me where the US said that.
That’s actually US policy and what I questioned. US POlicy is “If you nuke us we’ll nuke you back”. Show me where US has proposed first strike nuclear attack other than 80 years ago. And yes, the strike on Japan was immoral and unnecessary, but it’s not like Japan was being super cool either.
“Look they shot that hostage an hour ago, they’ve only been menacing everyone in the room with a gun since then. I think you’re overreacting here guys.”
Yes, of course, 10-12 different countries don’t have nuclear weapons and the Russians of course do not have nuclear armed submarines and dead-man hands ready to retaliate. Only the BAD United States.
Yes, of course, 10-12 different countries don’t have nuclear weapons and the Russians of course do not have nuclear armed submarines and dead-man hands ready to retaliate. Only the BAD United States.
It seems as though you’re saying you agree with the post and you recognize that US foreign policy and militarization is incredibly dangerous and deadly. If you think they’re all bad, then that means you agree that the US is bad. The only thing indicating that you disagree is the fact that the tone of your writing comes across as if you think the point you’re making is some kind of epic comeback.
But since the subject of the post has nothing to do with Russia’s nuclear policy or the policy of any other state, you’ve simply invented an assumed position so that you have something to be mad at. You’re boxing with a ghostly apparition of your own making and pretending that counts as a victory.
That’s fine. I’m not a huge fan of US foreign policy. What I question is the endless “Russia and China are fantastic but you know who is really bad?? Definitely the United States” theme I’ve been seeing.
Damn, well if that sentiment is so common then you should have been able to find a post where your reply was actually relevant instead of coming onto this post and inventing an argument to have with yourself.
The meme is so off base and bizarre that I’m not sure what you think we should be discussing. US liberals have fought for broad nuclear disarmament. Maybe you confused them with conservatives?
You’re ignoring their value as a deterrent, I know this because several others have brought this to your attention already. One nation used nukes on another. Other nations developed them explicitly as a deterrent. Luckily for us, so far, the deterrent has worked.
But still, the actions of the other people in the room, to return to my analogy, are a rational response to a rogue state with a superweapon it was clearly willing to use on civilians.
So, back in reality, yes, the US use of nuclear weapons ~80 years ago was not a good or moral decision. If you want to criticize people who have discussed using them since then, it sure as fuck isn’t “libs”.
I mean we debated using them on Korea and Clinton apparently threatened them with nuclear weapons behind closed doors. To say nothing of our constant exercises using nuclear bombers to make our threat to them clear.
But again. We used them against another nation. Other nations developed the same weapons explicitly as reaction to deter their use. Proliferation was a response to US policy, we don’t get to act indignant that other people drew their guns on us when after we shot someone in front of them.
And while we have thankfully been deterred from attacking people with nukes since they got them, we have killed millions of people in the interim in other unjust wars. Wars sanctioned by people like Joe and Hillary and JFK. America’s threat to the rest of the world is very obvious to anyone paying attention.
The US has used nukes twice, has the second largest arsenal, and was ready to pull them out in the conflicts which shaped these nations’ histories. That’s why I focused on the US and not, like, South Africa
Why do offensive claims matter here anyway? It was never brought up except by you
Okay, could you explain to me what this bizarre and clueless meme says? “Libs” want to massacre everyone living in several major countries, but will also cause them to attack everyone with nuclear weapons? Why and how could anyone take this seriously?
My interpretation is that liberals are so far removed from reality yet moved by their ideological positioning that they really will do the unthinkable to their ideological enemies without thinking
It could be with nukes, other WMDs, or just plain brutality. Mutually assured destruction or even retaliation or resistance by the brutalized in general is irrelevant. Libs do not care about human consequences in general. Those on the fringe of society as defined by them suffer, but it’s not important as long as their personal interests are furthered.
Why this is serious is that it has been the cause of great human tragedy for many years now. This is a meme though, and it’s more meant to express all of this that I’ve overexplained in a not so serious way, to those who recognize it.
The gist of the meme is that liberals are heavily propagandized and will call for the annihilation of those their propaganda marks as the enemy, and will do so at any cost up to and including nuclear exchanges.
That’s fine, but I’d note that 10-12 other countries are ready at all times to retaliate with nuclear weapons, so not sure why you singled out the US. The US has not championed offensive use of nuclear weapons since maybe 70 years ago. The only countries that have lately are Pakistan, India, NK and Russia.
The US is the only country that has a first nuclear strike policy, and is also the only country that has ever actually used nukes offensively.
Bad horsey.
Yes, 79 years ago. No US politician has proposed attacking anyone with nuclear weapons since maybe the 50s. So… who has? Hmm, Russia. maybe we could discuss that.
First strike policy. No US politican needs to “propose” anything so long as that doctrine is in place, it’s already a constant threat to any country that dares question US hegemony.
And what the Russians are saying is “If you nuke us we’ll nuke you back” which is an entirely different thing.
Nope, that’s not what they said. Obviously people here are not discussing anything in good faith, so it’s fairly useless, but Russian state media said if NATO interfered with their illegal and immoral massacre in Ukraine, they just might have to use nuclear weapons. Show me where the US said that.
Could you actually show what you’re saying here, it would help your case if you provided an example of Russian officials saying something concrete.
That’s actually US policy and what I questioned. US POlicy is “If you nuke us we’ll nuke you back”. Show me where US has proposed first strike nuclear attack other than 80 years ago. And yes, the strike on Japan was immoral and unnecessary, but it’s not like Japan was being super cool either.
That’s actually what Putin is saying.
Whereas the US: “Current U.S. policy does not restrict the president’s ability to order a nuclear strike for any reason at any time. The military may reject an order that is perceived to violate laws of war, and there are legal concerns about the role of Congress authorizing the use of force, but as a matter of broad understanding, the president can launch nuclear weapons when and if s/he chose to.”
Ah yes, for a very honest interpretation of international events I often turn to Putin’s statements.
Out of curiosity what source do you think would be a better representation of Russian policies regarding the use of nuclear weapons?
“Look they shot that hostage an hour ago, they’ve only been menacing everyone in the room with a gun since then. I think you’re overreacting here guys.”
Yes, of course, 10-12 different countries don’t have nuclear weapons and the Russians of course do not have nuclear armed submarines and dead-man hands ready to retaliate. Only the BAD United States.
It seems as though you’re saying you agree with the post and you recognize that US foreign policy and militarization is incredibly dangerous and deadly. If you think they’re all bad, then that means you agree that the US is bad. The only thing indicating that you disagree is the fact that the tone of your writing comes across as if you think the point you’re making is some kind of epic comeback.
But since the subject of the post has nothing to do with Russia’s nuclear policy or the policy of any other state, you’ve simply invented an assumed position so that you have something to be mad at. You’re boxing with a ghostly apparition of your own making and pretending that counts as a victory.
That’s fine. I’m not a huge fan of US foreign policy. What I question is the endless “Russia and China are fantastic but you know who is really bad?? Definitely the United States” theme I’ve been seeing.
Damn, well if that sentiment is so common then you should have been able to find a post where your reply was actually relevant instead of coming onto this post and inventing an argument to have with yourself.
The meme is so off base and bizarre that I’m not sure what you think we should be discussing. US liberals have fought for broad nuclear disarmament. Maybe you confused them with conservatives?
You’re ignoring their value as a deterrent, I know this because several others have brought this to your attention already. One nation used nukes on another. Other nations developed them explicitly as a deterrent. Luckily for us, so far, the deterrent has worked.
But still, the actions of the other people in the room, to return to my analogy, are a rational response to a rogue state with a superweapon it was clearly willing to use on civilians.
So, back in reality, yes, the US use of nuclear weapons ~80 years ago was not a good or moral decision. If you want to criticize people who have discussed using them since then, it sure as fuck isn’t “libs”.
I mean we debated using them on Korea and Clinton apparently threatened them with nuclear weapons behind closed doors. To say nothing of our constant exercises using nuclear bombers to make our threat to them clear.
But again. We used them against another nation. Other nations developed the same weapons explicitly as reaction to deter their use. Proliferation was a response to US policy, we don’t get to act indignant that other people drew their guns on us when after we shot someone in front of them.
And while we have thankfully been deterred from attacking people with nukes since they got them, we have killed millions of people in the interim in other unjust wars. Wars sanctioned by people like Joe and Hillary and JFK. America’s threat to the rest of the world is very obvious to anyone paying attention.
The US has used nukes twice, has the second largest arsenal, and was ready to pull them out in the conflicts which shaped these nations’ histories. That’s why I focused on the US and not, like, South Africa
Why do offensive claims matter here anyway? It was never brought up except by you
Okay, could you explain to me what this bizarre and clueless meme says? “Libs” want to massacre everyone living in several major countries, but will also cause them to attack everyone with nuclear weapons? Why and how could anyone take this seriously?
My interpretation is that liberals are so far removed from reality yet moved by their ideological positioning that they really will do the unthinkable to their ideological enemies without thinking
It could be with nukes, other WMDs, or just plain brutality. Mutually assured destruction or even retaliation or resistance by the brutalized in general is irrelevant. Libs do not care about human consequences in general. Those on the fringe of society as defined by them suffer, but it’s not important as long as their personal interests are furthered.
Why this is serious is that it has been the cause of great human tragedy for many years now. This is a meme though, and it’s more meant to express all of this that I’ve overexplained in a not so serious way, to those who recognize it.
Wait so your main point is that the meme is hyperbolic? I mean… yeah, I guess.
The gist of the meme is that liberals are heavily propagandized and will call for the annihilation of those their propaganda marks as the enemy, and will do so at any cost up to and including nuclear exchanges.