Eleven Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 How stupid can this moron get? And you know he's only doing it to distance himself from Russia. He's playing with our lives. 1
darksabre Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 John Bolton is the guy to look to on this idiocy. He would love a new arms race.
Eleven Posted February 1, 2019 Author Report Posted February 1, 2019 @LTS https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politics/us-russia-nuclear-arms-treaty-pompeo/index.html
Weave Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 I've only seen a little on this. And if what I've seen is accurate, I can't really fault the decision. I mean, if Russia isn't abiding anyway, it's not a working treaty. I'll need to read more on this. Strange that the man doesn't believe his intel when they counter his policy stance but he'll belive them now.
drnkirishone Posted February 3, 2019 Report Posted February 3, 2019 On 2/1/2019 at 6:02 PM, Weave said: Strange that the man doesn't believe his intel when they counter his policy stance but he'll belive them now. But is it? Seems perfectly in character
SABRES 0311 Posted February 10, 2019 Report Posted February 10, 2019 I’d like to see a revised treaty incorporating more countries. It’s weird because we are the only country to have used them in war but the justification was based on the estimated casualties of invading mainland Japan. A conventional war between us and Russia would surely result in severe casualties for both. So by precedence set in the only use of nuclear weapons, both sides may launch initial strikes using nuclear weapons. Hope I am wrong. So much knowledge, effort, and talent put into the development of these weapons makes you wonder where we would be if they were reallocated to other things.
LTS Posted February 10, 2019 Report Posted February 10, 2019 12 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: I’d like to see a revised treaty incorporating more countries. It’s weird because we are the only country to have used them in war but the justification was based on the estimated casualties of invading mainland Japan. A conventional war between us and Russia would surely result in severe casualties for both. So by precedence set in the only use of nuclear weapons, both sides may launch initial strikes using nuclear weapons. Hope I am wrong. So much knowledge, effort, and talent put into the development of these weapons makes you wonder where we would be if they were reallocated to other things. Isn't that just the bitch of war? We put our work into creating devices that destroy rather than devices that could change the world. I'm not sure why we have to hate each other on this planet, but it's certainly our biggest flaw as a species. Any war on this planet that resorts to nuclear weapons at this point will be the end of us. And I think any war of significant size will see someone pull the trigger on using them just so they can "not lose". There are no winners. Sigh.
SABRES 0311 Posted February 10, 2019 Report Posted February 10, 2019 3 hours ago, LTS said: Isn't that just the bitch of war? We put our work into creating devices that destroy rather than devices that could change the world. I'm not sure why we have to hate each other on this planet, but it's certainly our biggest flaw as a species. Any war on this planet that resorts to nuclear weapons at this point will be the end of us. And I think any war of significant size will see someone pull the trigger on using them just so they can "not lose". There are no winners. Sigh. Mutually Assured Destruction
LTS Posted February 11, 2019 Report Posted February 11, 2019 (edited) 17 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: Mutually Assured Destruction Right. The thing is that is usually talked about as the deterrent to using the weapons. Unfortunately the egos and hatred between people only seems to be growing. Growing to a point where it's not important that someone wins only that their opponent loses even if it means everyone loses. Edited February 11, 2019 by LTS Wonky double reply deleted.
SABRES 0311 Posted February 11, 2019 Report Posted February 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, LTS said: Right. The thing is that is usually talked about as the deterrent to using the weapons. Unfortunately the egos and hatred between people only seems to be growing. Growing to a point where it's not important that someone wins only that their opponent loses even if it means everyone loses. Crazy thing is I don’t believe the average person in most countries really want to go to war with another country. I understand there are ideological differences with Pakistan/India and NK (propaganda)/US, but humans know the cost. If the cause is not equal to or greater than the cost nobody wins. Don’t get me wrong I do believe there are instances where war is unavoidable but a WW3 scenario is completely avoidable as there is more to lose than gain. Only way I see it happening is if there was an intentional push.
LTS Posted February 11, 2019 Report Posted February 11, 2019 2 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: Crazy thing is I don’t believe the average person in most countries really want to go to war with another country. I understand there are ideological differences with Pakistan/India and NK (propaganda)/US, but humans know the cost. If the cause is not equal to or greater than the cost nobody wins. Don’t get me wrong I do believe there are instances where war is unavoidable but a WW3 scenario is completely avoidable as there is more to lose than gain. Only way I see it happening is if there was an intentional push. I agree. I think people of all countries, by and large, are not for war. Even in the countries you mentioned I don't think it's a vast majority of their societies that feel that way. Generally people want to just live their lives. My problem is that while people don't want the war the egos of politicians might just screw us over anyway, regardless of what the people want. I just hope it doesn't happen.
Recommended Posts