US Politics: Time for the Stormy season with a chance of conviction

[A True Kaniggit]

53 minutes ago, JGP said:

Crowdfunding for the development of a new type of spackle that'll smooth over his pores. He's still networking a solution for the wattle. 

Yeah, that seems far more likely than what I said.

Edited April 14 by A True Kaniggit

[Jace, Extat]

37 minutes ago, JGP said:

Putin has made an irrefutable argument regarding the value their possession however. Whether it's peace or The End, maybe the bomb would end all war... if every nation has them.

 

 

You jest, but limited war is preferable to nuclear.

37 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Let me rephrase.  You said :

You've already established that "that world" is the 8 'rational' nations with nuclear weapons.  But I'm asking you is why has that been proven "viable"?  What does viable mean in this context?  Does it mean that this is what has happened so far?  Do you simply mean that nuclear weapons haven't been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It has been proven viable, because despite too many close calls nobody has yet wanted to invite death for themselves and everybody they know. 

Nuclear war is not a question or a thought exercise. It must not happen. So far, the powers that possess them have managed not to use them. That's a miracle, not proof that everybody else can have them too.

[JGP]

Just now, Jace, Extat said:

You jest, but limited war is preferable to nuclear.

I'm not joking in the slightest.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

58 minutes ago, JGP said:

Putin has made an irrefutable argument regarding the value their possession however. Whether it's peace or The End, maybe the bomb would end all war... if every nation has them.

I wouldn't be surprised if more developed nations have them than we think. The greater fear is the rogue actor with a dirty bomb who doesn't care about the preservation of a state.

Edited April 14 by Mr. Chatywin et al.

[JGP]

24 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

I wouldn't be surprised if more devolved nations have them than we think. 

I'd be very surprised myself.

Where the US State hasn't been able to directly intervene in weaponization development, I don't think it too far of a gut-stretch to say it has indirectly intervened dozens, if not hundred of times. National security, economic stick and carrot policy, all that. 

 

24 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

The greater fear is the rogue actor with a dirty bomb who doesn't care about the preservation of a state.

Fissile materials are also jealously monitored, as best as possible anyway. That we haven't seen a dirty bomb incident since the break up of the Soviet Union doesn't necessarily mean we won't, but we haven't [to crib Jace's rationale] and like Z says: that djinn bottle is no longer stoppered. 

If I were a US citizen [and yeah, I thoroughly debated letting my daughters enter the US-- they're in NYC as we speak] I'd be much more afeared of many other things. 12 guns per capita in the freedumbest country in the world...    

I mean, the absolute fucking audacity asserting authority over who can and cannot [develop nuclear weapons] makes me shake my head. Fuck outa here.

 

Edited April 14 by JGP

[A True Kaniggit]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

I wouldn't be surprised if more developed nations have them than we think. The greater fear is the rogue actor with a dirty bomb who doesn't care about the preservation of a state.

Nah. Strategically that makes zero sense. 
 

The bombs are deterrents. 

[Jace, Extat]

11 minutes ago, JGP said:

 

I mean, the absolute fucking audacity asserting authority over who can and cannot [develop nuclear weapons] makes me shake my head. Fuck outa here.

 

You think all peoples who can build such a thing are entitled to it? We're not talking about roller coasters or microwave ovens... We're talking about weapons that are designed to kill whole countries at a time.

[Spockydog]

Nations who want nuclear weapons generally just want them so they can protect themselves from potential bullies who already have them, no?

Edited April 14 by Spockydog

[JGP]

16 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

You think all peoples who can build such a thing are entitled to it? We're not talking about roller coasters or microwave ovens... We're talking about weapons that are designed to kill whole countries at a time.

Entitled isn't how I'd have put it. More like the World seems, in majority, full of chickenshit piss babies that're tacitly ok with Putin doing more or less whatever the fuck he wants because of nuke rattling, so if another Nation feels they need them to electrify their fences against likewise aggressive Nations, go on then. Slay, girl.  

Like, China and US have both upped development [somewhat recently] so let's cut this to the bone, shall we: deproliferation will never, ever happen. But clearly, having them provides benefits.  

Edited April 14 by JGP

[A True Kaniggit]

5 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Nations who want nuclear weapons generally want them to protect themselves from US Aggression, no?

No. 

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, A True Kaniggit said:

No. 

That's fair enough.

[A True Kaniggit]

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Nations who want nuclear weapons generally want them to protect themselves from US Aggression, no?

Pakistan and India are for each other. 
 

Israel for the surrounding enemy states. 
 

Great Britain and France are allies. 
 

I suppose North Korea and Russia fit your criteria. 
 

Which ones am I missing?

[Spockydog]

6 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Pakistan and India are for each other. 
 

Israel for the surrounding enemy states. 
 

Great Britain and France are allies. 
 

I suppose North Korea and Russia fit your criteria. 
 

Which ones am I missing?

Yeah, I know. I just edited my post.

But you can bet your bollocks that a whole bunch of nations will be looking at the shit North Korea no longer has to take from the US, and thinking maybe they too can have Emperor Donald Trump kissing their collective national asses in fifteen years time.

Edited April 14 by Spockydog

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, JGP said:

Entitled isn't how I'd have put it. More like the World seems, in majority, full of chickenshit piss babies that're tacitly ok with Putin doing more or less whatever the fuck he wants because of nuke rattling, so if another Nation feels they need them to electrify their fences against likewise aggressive Nations, go on then. Slay, girl.  

 

But more nuclear nations just makes it more likely that bad actors can use them to deter intervention. To say nothing of the risk that some madman looks to use them offensively.

[A True Kaniggit]

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, I know. I just edited my post.

But you can bet your bollocks that a whole bunch of nations will be looking at the shit North Korea no longer has to take from the US, and thinking maybe they too can have Emperor Donald Trump kissing their collective national asses in fifteen years time.

No.
 

That may seem like a safe bet, but I’m not betting my balls on anything.

They keep me from falling backwards. 
 

 

[JGP]

Just now, Jace, Extat said:

But more nuclear nations just makes it more likely that bad actors can use them to deter intervention. To say nothing of the risk that some madman looks to use them offensively.

Are you serious right now or is this a bit.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, JGP said:

Are you serious right now or is this a bit.

I'm serious. The Uyghurs might not be in concentration camps if China didn't have nukes.

[JGP]

Just now, Jace, Extat said:

I'm serious. The Uyghurs might not be in concentration camps if China didn't have nukes.

You've pinned the tail on the donkey.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, JGP said:

If I were a US citizen [and yeah, I thoroughly debated letting my daughters enter the US-- they're in NYC as we speak] I'd be much more afeared of many other things. 12 guns per capita in the freedumbest country in the world...    

Pretty sure you read that stat incorrectly, but yes, it's a bigger daily concern than nuclear war. 

2 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Nah. Strategically that makes zero sense. 
 

The bombs are deterrents. 

They're deterrents for states that don't want to be attacked. Irrational actors, especially stateless ones, could give a fig about all that. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, I know. I just edited my post.

But you can bet your bollocks that a whole bunch of nations will be looking at the shit North Korea no longer has to take from the US, and thinking maybe they too can have Emperor Donald Trump kissing their collective national asses in fifteen years time.

DPRK is a failed state. That they have nukes really doesn't matter in terms of attacking the US outright and if they tried anything in the region the country would be destroyed rather quickly.