Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/10/23/the-pentagon-wants-to-spend-100-billion-on-a-new-nuclear-arsenal.html
…
6 Likes
The sample size is small, but if we go strictly by evidence, nuclear deterrence has a 100% success rate. So it’s not that ridiculous for the US to spend real money to make sure its nuclear arsenal actually works. If no one believes the missiles can fly, they’re still dangerous, but they also don’t work as a deterrent.
Everyone enjoys being against nuclear weapons because it’s such an easy high horse to get on – it’s a moral stance on which you are guaranteed never to be personally tested. But a real pacifist would say, let’s get rid of all arms except the nuclear ones. No one will invade the US while it has all those ICBMs, and that would be even more true if it didn’t have any other options. And nuclear bombs aren’t hurting anyone, whereas “conventional” forces… well.
Of course, for the US to dismantle its military would be a heavy lift politically; after all, it is the world’s biggest socialist economy.
3 Likes
The missiles don’t have to actually “work” to be a deterrent. The world just has to think that they work. The whole point is that you never actually use them.
2 Likes
SMFH
One only has to look at America’s psychotic behavior over the last few years to conclude that this is a supremely shit idea.
Mutually Assured Destruction (a shit idea based on Game Theory, which was another shit idea) only works as a deterrent if you have rational, intelligent people in control.
Yes it’s worked so far, but only just.
ICBMs or no, who the fuck is going to invade the US?!? And why would they want to?!?
8 Likes
Well I guess your insults of God at the very end sums it all up.
It’s quite curious you ended up on this stance, and stunning that you’d consider it’s his fault that you are in such a situation… US doesn’t look so much God driven these days… You’d better look the other way for the reasons of this shittiness.
People looking for jobs, if you believe the propaganda. I guess we could nuke Texas to stop them, but it seems drastic and politically challenging.
4 Likes
Y’know what would save a lot of money all around? Just deploy a big nuclear bomb in the basement of every embassy. Standard equipment! Somebody nukes your capitol, instant retribution, skip the whole launching, ballistic nonsense, and cut to the good part!
6 Likes
Wait, what?
8 Likes
Never ever let Trump see that!!
5 Likes
3 Likes
If you look at our current political state you will see the work around.
6 Likes
And what evidence would that be?
Is the US military is owned by the soldiers?
2 Likes
Boom goes Moscow, boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me…
They all hate us, anyhow
Let’s drop The Big One now!
That would be communism. No, the socialist USA military provides goods and services for troops for free or at controlled low prices. Free enterprise is discouraged – don’t compete with the suppliers!
1 Like
Social ownership is a key element in both Socialism and Communism.
As much as I like the thought of the US military being socialist, it simply isn’t. Other people are working and paying taxes so that the military has enough money to afford all that shit.
1 Like
Those things depreciate the second you take them out of the silo.
12 Likes
Ooh! Lets go through all the motions of dismantling our old nukes, build a non-ridiculous number of new ones (I mean how many do you really need to have for it to be a deterrent), pretend like we’re building the rest of them, and then sink that money into green energy research/climate change.
I mean, if someone is looking at getting hit by say a hundred large nuclear warheads vs. a few thousand, that’s really not much of a difference is it?
2 Likes
Name one country that has been invaded after building the nukes. I’m including states like Israel that were in repeated conflicts before going nuclear.
The answer is the Ukraine, but it was only invaded after it gave up its nukes.
3 Likes
It is a common phrase that does not mean what you may be thinking it means. It is mostly a form of emphasis, not having the literal meaning of the words. In this case it does not mean that God has been damned, or that God is damning the earth. It can be confusing for non-native English speakers.
(@anon21100188 is probably a native speaker and his confused reply to you is because he doesn’t realize your post was related to a direct interpretation of the words.)
1 Like
USgov build whatever you need right after you take care of three little things:
universal healthcare
UBI
carbon free sustainable energy
4 Likes
