[US Foreign Policy] Declare Victory and Come Home

1262729313245

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I don't know if it's official, but there is definitely supposed to be a definite amount of public difference to the civilian oversight. But that's only in public.

    In this situation I would honestly guess the biggest issue is the people just not knowing how to deal with this shit. I doubt any of these people were really prepared to find out the President was literally a crazy person. Everyone standing around glancing at each other going "Do you guys see this shit?" is a pretty expected reaction to that.

    Gnome-InterruptusMoridin889FencingsaxBlackDragon480SurfpossumKayne Red RobeGennenalyse RuebenNobeardKnuckle Draggerkime
  • Romantic UndeadRomantic Undead Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I don't know if it's official, but there is definitely supposed to be a definite amount of public difference to the civilian oversight. But that's only in public.

    In this situation I would honestly guess the biggest issue is the people just not knowing how to deal with this shit. I doubt any of these people were really prepared to find out the President was literally a crazy person. Everyone standing around glancing at each other going "Do you guys see this shit?" is a pretty expected reaction to that.

    It's been three years! How much longer should it take for that realization to seep in?

    3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
    RingopainfulPleasanceMan in the Mistskime
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I don't want to speak for all X, but for some people, their career means everything to them. It would not surprise me to find out many, if not all, of these officers are more concerned with that than being in the right.

    And that's horrifying. All enemies foreign and domestic. If the president orders these guys to fire on citizens these brave generals would apparently be all for it because well their career is more important.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Romantic UndeaddavidsdurionsQuidIncenjucarBigJoeMJaysonFourMillTicaldfjamCommunistCowGennenalyse RuebenEvermournMrVyngaardMan in the Mists
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't want to speak for all X, but for some people, their career means everything to them. It would not surprise me to find out many, if not all, of these officers are more concerned with that than being in the right.

    And that's horrifying. All enemies foreign and domestic. If the president orders these guys to fire on citizens these brave generals would apparently be all for it because well their career is more important.

    I have little doubt they would. Almost anyone with any shred of integrity was fired or left during the past years. In the end, only barely able yes-people remain

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    DouglasDangerCommunistCowpainfulPleasanceMrVyngaardLovely
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    Military are literally sworn not to criticize or contradict the President. They literally would be breaking the law and could be fired on the spot for doing it.

    Normally the top ranking officials have quite a bit leeway as advisors.

    Trump is not normal. So a lot of those generals are probably going on autopilot and toeing the line and being good little soldiers

    No we aren't.

    We aren't supposed to say derogatory or threatening things about the president but we're under absolutely no obligation to agree with him. An officer/NCO that doesn't provide contradicting information when it's true is functionally useless.

    Ok, but what happens when your superior officer appears to have abandoned reason and decides to accuse you of insubordination for daring to push back against his opinion? What happens to your career then?

    Depends. There's a ton of variables. I won't pretend that retaliation is a potential risk when disagreeing with one's superiors. But we're under no circumstance sworn to agree and support everything the president says.

    But frankly, part of being higher ranking is being willing and able to handle that risk. If someone's at the rank of flag officer they should be well past worrying about losing their position over doing what's right.

    And yet... we now have before us a testimonial saying that those at the very heights of military power appear to be doing just that...

    Yes. What's your point?

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I don't know if it's official, but there is definitely supposed to be a definite amount of public difference to the civilian oversight. But that's only in public.

    In this situation I would honestly guess the biggest issue is the people just not knowing how to deal with this shit. I doubt any of these people were really prepared to find out the President was literally a crazy person. Everyone standing around glancing at each other going "Do you guys see this shit?" is a pretty expected reaction to that.

    It's been three years! How much longer should it take for that realization to seep in?

    This meeting was in 2017. Like right after the inauguration.

    monikerjmcdonaldCouscousMoridin889ApogeeFencingsaxBlackDragon480ArdolCommunistCowGennenalyse RuebenElldren
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    H0b0man wrote: »
    When you're at that level you're expected to be willing to suffer blowback in order to do the right thing. The decisions that get made that high up are for such high stakes that your career is the last thing that should come into play. People's lives are very literally on the line.

    Seeing that story about the directors in the IC not wanting to testify because their boss might chew them out makes me sick. Do your damn job.

    You could say the same thing about our highest elected officials but we know that is not true.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    Gnome-InterruptusMorganV
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I don't know if it's official, but there is definitely supposed to be a definite amount of public difference to the civilian oversight. But that's only in public.

    In this situation I would honestly guess the biggest issue is the people just not knowing how to deal with this shit. I doubt any of these people were really prepared to find out the President was literally a crazy person. Everyone standing around glancing at each other going "Do you guys see this shit?" is a pretty expected reaction to that.

    There have been a few posts/articles recently about how the media 'normalises' Trump because they basically translate his nonsense when reporting in it because, amongst other things, they don't want to be accused of making him look foolish on purpose.

    For everybody else, they may be engaging in a kind of weirdness censor because it's very difficult to believe that a US President is this openly shitty. They aren't trying to present him as presidential, they're desperate for it to be true.

    Phoenix-DCelestialBadgerJragghenautono-wally, erotibot300painfulPleasanceMrVyngaardElldren
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    If a country with a habit of getting involved in proxy wars becomes a nuclear power, it stands to reason that they will only become more belligerent once they are relieved of the fear of direct invasion.

    I'm not sure what will happen but I doubt the middle east will start trending towards peace and prosperity once nukes are added into the mix. And if Iran gets it, SA soon follows and that terrifies me even more.

    shryke
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't want to speak for all X, but for some people, their career means everything to them. It would not surprise me to find out many, if not all, of these officers are more concerned with that than being in the right.

    And that's horrifying. All enemies foreign and domestic. If the president orders these guys to fire on citizens these brave generals would apparently be all for it because well their career is more important.

    I'd say there's a bit of a difference between shooting fellow Americans and wanting to keep your head down in a meeting or your grumbling private.

    Gnome-InterruptusCouscousMrMisterRickRudeKnuckle DraggerSkeithkime
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't want to speak for all X, but for some people, their career means everything to them. It would not surprise me to find out many, if not all, of these officers are more concerned with that than being in the right.

    And that's horrifying. All enemies foreign and domestic. If the president orders these guys to fire on citizens these brave generals would apparently be all for it because well their career is more important.

    I'd say there's a bit of a difference between shooting fellow Americans and wanting to keep your head down in a meeting or your grumbling private.

    I dunno seeing these chuckle fucks almost brought us to war with iran to appease Trump I'm not exactly sold on they couldn't justify shooting americans for the same.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    JaysonFourEvermournpainfulPleasanceMan in the Mists
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I don't know if it's official, but there is definitely supposed to be a definite amount of public difference to the civilian oversight. But that's only in public.

    In this situation I would honestly guess the biggest issue is the people just not knowing how to deal with this shit. I doubt any of these people were really prepared to find out the President was literally a crazy person. Everyone standing around glancing at each other going "Do you guys see this shit?" is a pretty expected reaction to that.

    There have been a few posts/articles recently about how the media 'normalises' Trump because they basically translate his nonsense when reporting in it because, amongst other things, they don't want to be accused of making him look foolish on purpose.

    For everybody else, they may be engaging in a kind of weirdness censor because it's very difficult to believe that a US President is this openly shitty. They aren't trying to present him as presidential, they're desperate for it to be true.

    I was watching the livestream of the CBS coverage of the Iran attacks, and it was surreal. You'd go on Twitter and see print reporters boggling that the Administration was shutting down for the night and dropping vague hints that it was because Trump wasn't in good enough shape to go in front of the cameras, and then look at the screen to see Weijia Jiang talking about how Administration officials were evaluating the strikes so that they had the correct information to share with the American people.

    painfulPleasance
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Iran deserves a nuke as much as anyone does

    It's the only way to guarantee your sovereignty

    They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has

    Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.

    Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.

    Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.

    ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.

    but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.

    We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.

    That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?

    The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.

    I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.

    While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.

    As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.

    The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.

    Yes, nuclear nonproliferation has become a dead letter over the course of the last decade. Mostly thanks to Putin. It's horrible and a bit frightening about what that means for the future.

    The U.S. abandoning the principle of national sovereignty to take Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off this particular era.

    Ukraine is the latest example. They gave up their nukes under the implicit notion that the West would protect them from Russian aggression. We've thrown them completely under the bus.

    Libya is also a good example of this. They gave up all their nuclear stuff they were working on to appease the US but in the end we smacked them up anyway.

    America's Jekyll-and-Hyde political system causes a lot of problems here. Countries meet Democrat politicians and ambassadors who are all smiles and sincerity and sign reasonable deals to get rid of nukes in exchange for mutually beneficial economic deals. Then 4 years later, Mr Hyde comes back and the Republicans tear up the US side of the deal and shit on it, while expecting the other countries to honor their side of the deal with nothing in exchange.

    Countries are going to wise up that the words of the Democrats are worth shit, because 4-8 years later, Republicans will trash the deal.
    In the case of Libya it was the opposite. Gaddafi disarmed during the Bush era - perhaps drawing the wrong lesson from the Iraq invasion - and began improving relations with the US, particular when it came to cooperation in suppressing Islamic militant groups in North Africa.

    Then the 2011 revolt occurred and the Obama administration (with European support) decided that was a good opportunity to do the regime change thing again, via an extensive bombing campaign. Fast forward to 2020 and Libya is still in the midst of a civil war, with increasing international involvement. Meanwhile, the resulting destabilization has gradually rippled southward through Mali as far as Burkina Faso and Niger, where ISIS/AQ types have killed thousands in the past year.

    Bush's destruction of Iraq, Obama's destruction of Libya, and Putin's aggression on Ukraine are all decent arguments for weaker nations acquiring nuclear weapons. Particularly Iraq and Libya, since those events led to the total destruction of those states and years of chaotic civil war. Democrats can't just bame Putin and the GOP for this.

    DouglasDangerRingoCaedwyrMrMisterJuliusOrcapainfulPleasance
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    H0b0man wrote: »
    When you're at that level you're expected to be willing to suffer blowback in order to do the right thing. The decisions that get made that high up are for such high stakes that your career is the last thing that should come into play. People's lives are very literally on the line.

    Seeing that story about the directors in the IC not wanting to testify because their boss might chew them out makes me sick. Do your damn job.

    You could say the same thing about our highest elected officials but we know that is not true.

    That's exactly what I was about to say.

    What these positions (military and political) should be about, is duty over career. And while some might still do that, it's kind of self-selecting that the people more ambitious (and therefore more career oriented) get those positions. Even if it's not completely cynical, and just "I need to maintain my position, and am willing to cut some corners to do so, because I believe I am the right person for the job".

    It's all well and good to say "Do your job", but unless the structure in place decentivizes this kind of behavior, and all but bans ambition, the positions are going to gravitate towards people who can navigate the landmine of politics needed to get to that position in the first place.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    The military top brass probably need to be able to swallow their words a bit in order to do things like work with Obama when most of them probably think he's not fit to polish their boots. But they shouldn't be expected to take it if treated like shit.

    AresProphet
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't want to speak for all X, but for some people, their career means everything to them. It would not surprise me to find out many, if not all, of these officers are more concerned with that than being in the right.

    And that's horrifying. All enemies foreign and domestic. If the president orders these guys to fire on citizens these brave generals would apparently be all for it because well their career is more important.

    I'd say there's a bit of a difference between shooting fellow Americans and wanting to keep your head down in a meeting or your grumbling private.

    I dunno seeing these chuckle fucks almost brought us to war with iran to appease Trump I'm not exactly sold on they couldn't justify shooting americans for the same.

    A lot of them have wanted to shoot at Iran for decades. Not so much stage Civil War 2

    shryke
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't want to speak for all X, but for some people, their career means everything to them. It would not surprise me to find out many, if not all, of these officers are more concerned with that than being in the right.

    And that's horrifying. All enemies foreign and domestic. If the president orders these guys to fire on citizens these brave generals would apparently be all for it because well their career is more important.

    I'd say there's a bit of a difference between shooting fellow Americans and wanting to keep your head down in a meeting or your grumbling private.

    I dunno seeing these chuckle fucks almost brought us to war with iran to appease Trump I'm not exactly sold on they couldn't justify shooting americans for the same.

    A lot of them have wanted to shoot at Iran for decades. Not so much stage Civil War 2

    I wouldn't be so sure about that based on the bullshit I see in the right wing.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    DouglasDangerJuliusNothingpainfulPleasanceMrVyngaardMan in the MistsKamar
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    What would be the objective in Civil War 2? Because I'm pretty sure if Republican leaning states wanted to secede, the rest of the US would be ok with that.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't want to speak for all X, but for some people, their career means everything to them. It would not surprise me to find out many, if not all, of these officers are more concerned with that than being in the right.

    And that's horrifying. All enemies foreign and domestic. If the president orders these guys to fire on citizens these brave generals would apparently be all for it because well their career is more important.

    I'd say there's a bit of a difference between shooting fellow Americans and wanting to keep your head down in a meeting or your grumbling private.

    I dunno seeing these chuckle fucks almost brought us to war with iran to appease Trump I'm not exactly sold on they couldn't justify shooting americans for the same.

    A lot of them have wanted to shoot at Iran for decades. Not so much stage Civil War 2

    I wouldn't be so sure about that based on the bullshit I see in the right wing.

    So you honestly believe the only thing holding us back from the Army bombing Philadelphia is because Trump hasn't asked them to yet?

    Again, that seems a pretty long jump to conclude from Generals complaining in private over Trump's bullshit rather than out loud in the Pentagon.

    MrMisterDongs GaloreElvenshaeMonwynRickRudeKnuckle Dragger
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't want to speak for all X, but for some people, their career means everything to them. It would not surprise me to find out many, if not all, of these officers are more concerned with that than being in the right.

    And that's horrifying. All enemies foreign and domestic. If the president orders these guys to fire on citizens these brave generals would apparently be all for it because well their career is more important.

    I'd say there's a bit of a difference between shooting fellow Americans and wanting to keep your head down in a meeting or your grumbling private.

    I dunno seeing these chuckle fucks almost brought us to war with iran to appease Trump I'm not exactly sold on they couldn't justify shooting americans for the same.

    A lot of them have wanted to shoot at Iran for decades. Not so much stage Civil War 2

    I wouldn't be so sure about that based on the bullshit I see in the right wing.

    So you honestly believe the only thing holding us back from the Army bombing Philadelphia is because Trump hasn't asked them to yet?

    Again, that seems a pretty long jump to conclude from Generals complaining in private over Trump's bullshit rather than out loud in the Pentagon.

    Yes I fully believe if Trump ordered the army to like invade california to force compliance these generals would be fine with it.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    JaysonFourautono-wally, erotibot300JuliusTicaldfjamEinzelMrVyngaardMan in the MistsKamar
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited January 17
    Hoz wrote: »
    What would be the objective in Civil War 2? Because I'm pretty sure if Republican leaning states wanted to secede, the rest of the US would be ok with that.

    My cursory reading of American history is that the only reason why the US avoided decades of their own version of The Troubles is the concessions to the Southern states, since the Yanks saw Lincoln getting offed and decided to not risk it.

    Civil War 2 will not have such niceties. Though I see it as unlikely coming from the Republicans, given how they managed to have firm control of the Legislative, are doing big steps to control the Judiciary and Trump still has a very decent change to win (and if he does, is 90% sure that he will get to replace RBG aka Repubs get everything they want). So is more likely that the Democrat leaning states are the ones to secede.

    TryCatcher on
  • I ZimbraI Zimbra Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    What would be the objective in Civil War 2? Because I'm pretty sure if Republican leaning states wanted to secede, the rest of the US would be ok with that.

    My cursory reading of American history is that the only reason why the US avoided decades of their own version of The Troubles is the concessions to the Southern states, since the Yanks saw Lincoln getting offed and decided to not risk it.

    Civil War 2 will not have such niceties. Though I see it as unlikely coming from the Republicans, given how they managed to have firm control of the Legislative, are doing big steps to control the Judiciary and Trump still has a very decent change to win (and if he does, is 90% sure that he will get to replace RBG aka Repubs get everything they want). So is more likely that the Democrat leaning states are the ones to secede.

    We did have our version of the Troubles in the form of a century or so of state-sponsored terror against black people.

    FencingsaxJaysonFourVishNubCelestialBadgerPreacherdestroyah87MorganVMartini_PhilosopherRingoDouglasDangerDoodmannPolaritiemonikerButtersQuidSleepjmcdonaldCaptain InertiaBlackDragon480Gnome-InterruptusArdolshrykeMild ConfusionPhoenix-DGONG-00XandarEncToxLabelMvrckbrynhrtmnDarkPrimusShadowfireMeeqeBigJoeMDavid WalgasGennenalyse RuebenboogedybooOrcaTicaldfjamSolarEinzelpainfulPleasanceMoridin889HacksawlonelyahavaNobeardMrVyngaardCalicaMan in the MistsSkeithDocKoopahTroopahKamarFleur de AlysLovelyElldrenNyysjannever die
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited January 17
    Civil War 2 would be over ruling the Union, not dissolving it. I can't see any state or bloc of states attempting to secede.
    e: it could still very well result in the Union dissolving tho

    Dongs Galore on
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    Hoz wrote: »
    What would be the objective in Civil War 2? Because I'm pretty sure if Republican leaning states wanted to secede, the rest of the US would be ok with that.

    Their line of reasoning:
    - liberals don't like guns and don't own any
    - we do and do
    - in a civil war we kill them all and win, have conservative Paradise

    steam_sig.png
    SleepApogeeautono-wally, erotibot300Kayne Red RobeJaysonFourEinzelpainfulPleasanceMrVyngaardKamar
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    Hoz wrote: »
    What would be the objective in Civil War 2? Because I'm pretty sure if Republican leaning states wanted to secede, the rest of the US would be ok with that.

    It's not states

    The awful Christian theocratic fascists literally want to be free to kill anyone who doesn't fit their world-view

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
    SleepEmerlmaster999JaysonFourpainfulPleasanceHacksawMrVyngaardMan in the MistsKamarElldren
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited January 17
    So Handmaid's Tale, ok. Yeah, I repressed that possibility from my thoughts because it's actually plausible.

    Hoz on
    Doodmann
  • A duck!A duck! Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Guys this doesn't seem like foreign policy.

    QuidKetBraCaptain InertiamonikerVladimerGnome-InterruptusshrykerndmheroMrMisterCommander ZoomGONG-00BloodsheedToxQanamilElvenshaedispatch.oLabelLegacyGnizmobrynhrtmniTunesIsEvilShadowfireBrodyGiantGeek2020RaijuTetraNitroCubaneJaysonFourGennenalyse RuebenOghulkHefflingBullheadMoridin889NobeardKnuckle DraggerSkeithKoopahTroopahPixelated Pixienever die
  • RingoRingo HE KEEPS REPEATING THE LINE I'M GONNA CRY BLEASE LET HIM LIVE YOU MADE ME WATCH SO MUCH KISSING IN THIS FILM LET INIGO LIVERegistered User regular
    A duck! wrote: »
    Guys this doesn't seem like foreign policy.

    But once the left coast secedes, it will be!

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
    CommunistCowRickRudeDavid WalgasJaysonFourTicaldfjamMoridin889MrVyngaardDark Raven XMan in the MistsKoopahTroopahKamarFleur de Alys
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Iran deserves a nuke as much as anyone does

    It's the only way to guarantee your sovereignty

    They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has

    Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.

    Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.

    Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.

    ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.

    but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.

    We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.

    That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?

    The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.

    I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.

    While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.

    As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.

    The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.

    Yes, nuclear nonproliferation has become a dead letter over the course of the last decade. Mostly thanks to Putin. It's horrible and a bit frightening about what that means for the future.

    The U.S. abandoning the principle of national sovereignty to take Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off this particular era.

    Ukraine is the latest example. They gave up their nukes under the implicit notion that the West would protect them from Russian aggression. We've thrown them completely under the bus.

    Libya is also a good example of this. They gave up all their nuclear stuff they were working on to appease the US but in the end we smacked them up anyway.

    America's Jekyll-and-Hyde political system causes a lot of problems here. Countries meet Democrat politicians and ambassadors who are all smiles and sincerity and sign reasonable deals to get rid of nukes in exchange for mutually beneficial economic deals. Then 4 years later, Mr Hyde comes back and the Republicans tear up the US side of the deal and shit on it, while expecting the other countries to honor their side of the deal with nothing in exchange.

    Countries are going to wise up that the words of the Democrats are worth shit, because 4-8 years later, Republicans will trash the deal.
    In the case of Libya it was the opposite. Gaddafi disarmed during the Bush era - perhaps drawing the wrong lesson from the Iraq invasion - and began improving relations with the US, particular when it came to cooperation in suppressing Islamic militant groups in North Africa.

    Then the 2011 revolt occurred and the Obama administration (with European support) decided that was a good opportunity to do the regime change thing again, via an extensive bombing campaign. Fast forward to 2020 and Libya is still in the midst of a civil war, with increasing international involvement. Meanwhile, the resulting destabilization has gradually rippled southward through Mali as far as Burkina Faso and Niger, where ISIS/AQ types have killed thousands in the past year.

    Bush's destruction of Iraq, Obama's destruction of Libya, and Putin's aggression on Ukraine are all decent arguments for weaker nations acquiring nuclear weapons. Particularly Iraq and Libya, since those events led to the total destruction of those states and years of chaotic civil war. Democrats can't just bame Putin and the GOP for this.

    Obama followed the Europeans into Libya not the other way around. France was the primary lead.

    wbBv3fj.png
    monikerCaedwyrjmcdonaldshrykeMeeqeRaijuFencingsaxStabbity StyleJaysonFourGennenalyse RuebenEinzelMoridin889KruiteKnuckle DraggerGnome-InterruptusSkeithElldren
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't want to speak for all X, but for some people, their career means everything to them. It would not surprise me to find out many, if not all, of these officers are more concerned with that than being in the right.

    And that's horrifying. All enemies foreign and domestic. If the president orders these guys to fire on citizens these brave generals would apparently be all for it because well their career is more important.

    I'd say there's a bit of a difference between shooting fellow Americans and wanting to keep your head down in a meeting or your grumbling private.

    I dunno seeing these chuckle fucks almost brought us to war with iran to appease Trump I'm not exactly sold on they couldn't justify shooting americans for the same.

    A lot of them have wanted to shoot at Iran for decades. Not so much stage Civil War 2

    A contiguous US from coast to coast and they can take the rest, but we'll hammer out a trade deal have a nice life.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    quovadis13 wrote: »
    Book excerpt where Trump’s idea of the military is to use it as a money making racket. When you’re a hammer after all



    Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.

    Generals feeling enpowered to tell the President to fuck off is, uh, not better, really

    uH3IcEi.png
    DoodmannElvenshae
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    quovadis13 wrote: »
    Book excerpt where Trump’s idea of the military is to use it as a money making racket. When you’re a hammer after all



    Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.

    Generals feeling enpowered to tell the President to fuck off is, uh, not better, really

    A General feeling empowered to say, "This is fucking stupid" and "We're not mercenaries" in a closed door meeting seems like a pretty uncontroversially good thing.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    I Zimbradispatch.oPreacherDoodmannMartini_PhilosopherPolaritieXaquinQuidmonikerMrMistershrykeH0b0manBlackDragon480RaijuFencingsaxStabbity StyleArdolGennenalyse RuebentynicHellerbooyEvermournTicaldfjamJaysonFourAlexandierpainfulPleasanceButtersMoridin889NobeardNeveronMrVyngaardMortiousMr FuzzbuttCalicaMan in the MistsSkeithKoopahTroopahPixelated PixieKamarkimeAbsoluteZeroElldrennever die
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    Telling the president he's wrong isn't the same as advocating for a coup. It's their responsibility to advise, even if that advice makes him frown and stomp his wittle feets.

    mrondeauPreacherPolaritieSleepdavidsdurionsDarkPrimusQuidmonikerRingoDouglasDangerEmerlmaster999shrykeH0b0manCelestialBadgerMvrckBlackDragon480RaijuCommander ZoomFencingsaxStabbity StyleArdol14357Gennenalyse RuebentynicOrcaTicaldfjamJaysonFourpainfulPleasanceForarButtersBullheadMoridin889HacksawHonkNobeardMrVyngaardMr FuzzbuttGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsSkeithhonovereKoopahTroopahKetarKamarkimeAbsoluteZeroElldren
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    quovadis13 wrote: »
    Book excerpt where Trump’s idea of the military is to use it as a money making racket. When you’re a hammer after all



    Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.

    Generals feeling enpowered to tell the President to fuck off is, uh, not better, really

    A General feeling empowered to say, "This is fucking stupid" and "We're not mercenaries" in a closed door meeting seems like a pretty uncontroversially good thing.

    Sure. But that slope gets awful slippery.

    uH3IcEi.png
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    quovadis13 wrote: »
    Book excerpt where Trump’s idea of the military is to use it as a money making racket. When you’re a hammer after all



    Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.

    Generals feeling enpowered to tell the President to fuck off is, uh, not better, really

    A General feeling empowered to say, "This is fucking stupid" and "We're not mercenaries" in a closed door meeting seems like a pretty uncontroversially good thing.

    Sure. But that slope gets awful slippery.

    It's happened a million times in the democracies of the world.

    Sometimes it happens anyway.

    Sometimes the head of state reflects and changes course

    Sometimes people lose their jobs even if they get their way

    But I don't know what vision you have where somehow this is the less preferential way of things

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    Preacher
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    quovadis13 wrote: »
    Book excerpt where Trump’s idea of the military is to use it as a money making racket. When you’re a hammer after all



    Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.

    Generals feeling enpowered to tell the President to fuck off is, uh, not better, really

    It's literally their job to contradict the president when the president is wrong. If they can't provide truthful information even if it's upsetting then they're useless.

    FFS we teach junior enlisted this and encourage them to do so. There's no excuse for a general at the peak of their career.

    I ZimbramonikerRingodavidsdurionsPreacherdispatch.oEmerlmaster999MrMisterRedTideMeeqeH0b0manGiantGeek2020BlackDragon480RaijuFencingsaxStabbity StyleArdolMillGennenalyse RuebentynicHellerbooyJaysonFourSolarAlexandierpainfulPleasanceVeagleForarButtersMoridin889OneAngryPossumHacksawMrVyngaardMr FuzzbuttMan in the MistsSkeithKetarMartini_PhilosopherKamarkimeAbsoluteZeroElldren
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    quovadis13 wrote: »
    Book excerpt where Trump’s idea of the military is to use it as a money making racket. When you’re a hammer after all



    Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.

    Generals feeling enpowered to tell the President to fuck off is, uh, not better, really

    A General feeling empowered to say, "This is fucking stupid" and "We're not mercenaries" in a closed door meeting seems like a pretty uncontroversially good thing.

    Sure. But that slope gets awful slippery.

    No it doesn't. I've told plenty of superiors X isn't possible when it's not what they wanted to hear. I've told a couple X isn't possible, been yelled at, and watched them go around me to try and get someone else give the answer they want.

    No military member's job is to be a yes man and this grows exponentially more true the higher the rank.

    monikerdavidsdurionsPreacherThe Dude With Herpesdispatch.oRedTideH0b0manMild ConfusionGiantGeek2020RickRudeMvrckBlackDragon480RaijuDiannaoChongFencingsaxStabbity StyleArdolMilltynicHellerbooyOghulkMorganVJaysonFourelectricitylikesmepainfulPleasanceForarButtersMoridin889HacksawNobeardMrVyngaardCalicaMan in the MistsFiatilMartini_PhilosopherKamarkimeAbsoluteZeromRahmani38thDoeElldrennever die
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited January 18
    AFAIK even the president can issue unlawful orders which the generals have a moral obligation to advise against and a legal obligation to refuse.

    I'm sure what constitutes unlawful coming from POTUS is a fuzzy line to draw right now but maybe it shouldn't be.

    Edit: Ordering an assassination for example should be unlawful, but the military has to be authorized to take human life in some capacity and that's a morally wrong (or right?) thing that's entirely lawful.

    dispatch.o on
    GiantGeek2020electricitylikesmeGnome-InterruptusElldren
  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    I know I'm late to the party but I had a comment on the subject of Iran's nuclear program. They aren't making weapons and won't be able to for a good long time still. Iran is currently enriching uranium to 3%. It's just enough to run breeder reactors but no where near the 98% they'd need to make nuclear weapons. It'll take a LOT of uranium and a LONG time in breeder reactors to even come close to weapons grade. But they don't appear to be targeting weapons grade purity. They just want to produce electricity with it and breeder reactors are the best way to do it with shitty, low quality fissionable material.

    camo_sig.png
    Julius
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    While yes, adding another nuclear armed nation with a history of being belligerent is a bad thing, I'm not sure they're a bigger threat than some of the other nations that already have them. Specifically, North Korea, Pakistan, and most recently, India (The Kashmir annexation is irresponsible as fuck).

    Also the only nation to have ever actually used them and has started multiple wars in the middle east the last couple decades and also very recently threatened war with Iran.

    Bogart wrote: »
    I am absolutely not sure that Iran developing nukes means people leave it alone. Israel might well see a concerted push towards getting those nukes on the part of Iran as an existential threat and make a pre-emptive strike of some kind before Iran gets there as part of the Begin Doctrine. They might not, of course, and everything might work out in a MAD shaped uneasy peace if Iran one day says surprise we have nukes, but who knows?

    It wouldn't be the first time Israel have bombed a nuclear facility to prevent an enemy from developing nukes.
    Yeah that's the other thing. I don't seen Iran being able to develop nukes. If the US doesn't use military force to stop them I have a hard time imagining a scenario where Israel doesn't.

    Not that Israel getting into a hot war with Iran is a good thing at all but the idea of Iran suddenly becoming a nuclear state has always struck me as pretty far fetched for numerous reasons.

    You guys know that this is already exactly the situation now, right? What else do you think the JCPOA was for? Why do you think Israel and the US developed Stuxnet? All this shit is premised on the condition that Iran is currently developing nukes.
    The whole point is about Iran actually having them. Obviously the other guys would prevent Iran from developing nukes, because they are preventing Iran from developing nukes now. It's nonsensical to talk about this as some sort of "What if?" scenario. Not everything is about things that can realistically happen, sometimes it's about whether they should happen.

Sign In or Register to comment.