And he's doing this while the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is furloughed... 🧐
post
He's been itching to nuke something since his first term. Hurricanes, he suggested at one point. And Americans voted him into office twice. Fucking morons.
Some Americans voted for him 3 times!
Seriously, imagine how fucking dumb you would have to be to fill out three separate ballots over nearly a decade voting for a failed reality TV star.
Is he unstable enough for the 25th amendment yet? Asking for a friend.
Can someone just tell him no one else has nuclear fusion power stations yet but (china|EU|Russia) are close and how much money it would make.
It would make money at a country level, but does it fill his personal wallets like the oil industry?
So it's worthless for him
It only matters if it makes money for him. Someone wealthy and interested in cracking nuclear fusion would need to be giving him a payout.
Ah, the "I had no choice!" argument for scaling up world tension. Yeah, we've never heard that one before. Hitler also "had no choice" but to invade Sudetenland, Austria and Poland.
The "we had no choice" argument is always used to take the victim role as an excuse to justify anything you like. Whether it is joining wars because they sank your illegal weapons shipment hidden in an ocean liner, invading a country because you made it look like they sank your ship, invade a country because a few terrorists attacked your country, invade a country because you claim there might be weapons of mass destruction, send troops and chemical weapons to a dictatorial regime because the freedom fighters threaten your overseas naval base, invade a country for denazification, commit ethnic cleansing, genocide and other horrible war crimes because some terrorist extremists attacked your country after years and years of oppression and apartheid, etc etc etc. There are so many examples in history where this tactic has been used. The entire cold war thrived on this bullshit argument "look at them, I have no choice".
"I'm going to do something bad, so I find a way to justify it."
- every dictator, agressor, war criminal in history.
One can never be sure what President Brain Worms is talking about but I'm pretty sure Obama started a ten year plan to modernize our nuclear forces early in his presidency.
Just shows he is desperately trying to create many more distractions from the Epstein files to see what works.
This is horrifying. Like, mind-bogglingly bad.
It's also a blatant lie. Other countries are not testing nuclear weapons, they're running simulations. We didn't do that in the 60s because it wasn't possible, but the US (and presumably China/Russia) literally have giant supercomputers for this purpose now.
...And we would know if they were doing real testing because it would show up on seismographs.
But who cares about truth? Or sanity? No, all my relatives (even scientifically minded ones) won't even bat an eye, lest some Democrat steal their retirement, ugh.
Trumplethinskin is too stupid to understand any of that . He desperately wants to to be the one to trigger a spectacular overreaction and turn another country into glass.
#smallcarrotproblems
show up on seismographs
and any surface tests would show up on sattelites
Good time to remind that, in all History, only one country used nuclear bombs in a war.
Twice!
For "Research Purposes" (TM)
And who, exactly, is going to get paid to do that? Last I saw 75% of them were furloughed at the moment.
Don't worry, there will be a company popping up tied to some Republicunts who'll do the testing for "cheap".
I'm NGL If my job put in the position to be the one testing nukes it would be very tempting to do so even without pay just on a 'oonga boonga big boom' basis. Unfortunately I'm educated enough to know how awful that is for the environment, also not a nuclear test engineer or whatever the job title even is.
Why? They work... We checked.
Even if it wasn't for the other million reasons, this guy's grammar alone should disqualify him from having the nuclear codes.
President of peace.
I can't believe no one posted the source. Not even op
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115460423936412555
Unless I'm mistaken Russia has way more nukes than the US still.
Why would any country need that many? I mean having any is stupid because it will always end in mutually assured destruction but with that many, you could kill us all if you were on the verge of one hitting you.
Stupid, legacy calculus but calculus none the less. During the Cold war both sides recognized that a direct or near direct hit on a launch site could potentially negate any chance for retribution or follow up attacks in an otherwise limited/not all out scenario. So they counted the delivery mechanism they could identify, did some multiplication to account for misses and defenses and came up with a number. Then the other side noticed the build up, comes up with same general calculus and runs the same general math to decide how many they need. And this the goes back and forth for decades where each side is building up counters to their rivals counters. And the numbers we have now are actually a reduction from the peak of the Cold war build up.
thankfully we at least halted that trend for a while with early warning systems: no longer launch all your nukes and you might take out all of theirs… launch all your nukes and by the time they arrive the retaliatory ICBMS will be 5min from hitting their own targets; likely right on top of you… launch an ICBM and you’re fucked
It is mutually-assured destruction. The idea is that there are enough nukes to end all life on earth. Because if there are that many nukes, then nobody would ever use them.
That’s how the US and USSR came up with these figures when they were disarming at the end of the Cold War.
does anyone know how many of those are operational?
No, and we probably never will. The Russian government certainly doesn't. When the invasion of Ukraine proper started, a lot of their equipment failed or was missing, and the military wasn't aware. It had been sold off or just not maintained by the people in charge of it.
I'm certain the same thing has happened with the nuclear arsenal. The only time it will be used is if you already lost, so what's the point in spending money on keeping it operational over just having the appearance of it being operational. Your enemy can't know the difference (especially if you don't) and it'd be bad to bet on it failing, so it serves exactly the same purpose regardless.
We would try, but the mods silence us talking about it.
Sorry, could you expand on that a bit? Who’s silencing you and why?
Any suggestion of effective tactics to remove the president are met with removal.
I haven’t seen it on .world, but on shitworks they kill any suggestion that violence may be necessary to end the hostile foreign takeover of USA govt.
Donald Trump should be killed by the people of the United States, and that killing is not a crime because it is self-defense. This comment will be removed
If there is an impeachment (meaning Congress/Senate actually doing their jobs), followed by imprisonment, meanwhile new free elections and finally a trial... If the trial reaches the conclusion the death penalty is what he should get for his crimes, "the US people killing Trump" would be completely legal in any sense of the word and to any foreign, independent observer. People have gotten legal death penalties for much less and in way more dubious circumstances in the USA in rather recent times...
When are the shitjustworks guys going to realise this just doesn’t work. These are all rules we already tried to follow, and he keeps making things worse for everyone, while lying and enriching soulless sycophants daily.
The US democracy doesn’t have that kind of time. The people don’t have that kind of time. The climate and the planet and all of humanity don’t have that kind of time.
He declared war on everything we stand for. At what point do we just say fuck the rules, off with his head, it’s gone too far?
You’re still debating, and intellectualising this. It is not a debate if you’re snatched off the street, an unpaid govt worker, or his political foes.
Think of 3 more really unthinkable borderline illegal things he could do. He will have done 3 of those in the next half year. The incrementalism is how these types win. It must end.
I don't follow USA politics to every detail: has there been an impeachment attempt? Problem is not me intellectualising, it's representatives of the people: Congress & senate, not doing their jobs. Their job is not being a yes person to the president. It's representing the people. The culture where they are headless chicken was installed long before trump. Yet they and their institutions are the way to end this properly, cleanly and with enough representative power so it does not lead to civil war. The president needs to seek approval of Congress for policy, not the other way around. Some random murder in the street scenario is a recipe for disaster for everyone. It creates an enormous power vacuum. The Congress way avoids that. It is the least worrying path this can go down...
Naturally. Lemmy’s on the hook, but particularly the relevant instances, if someone pops off and it appears poor moderation was the cause. Comment removal after 95% of potential readers have already read it, and no ban? That’s about as good as you can get. This place is plenty militant enough
Choose one...global warming or nuclear winter. I think that is our futures only options.
Dumbass probably watched a movie and was like duuuuh that looks cool lolz...
Are any other countries actually actively testing nuclear weapons?
(I don't think North Korea counts/is.)
Not really. We know they work.
As if nuking Russia would help. They have the Dead-Hand system. No one wins here.
If it’s anything like the rest of their military equipment, I’m not too worried about it.
Given the dead-hand policy, that's easily the most dangerous mindset I've read on Lemmy.
It should make you more worried, lest faulty equipment leads to another incident like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
And we don't have someone like Stanislav Petrov literally risking his neck to save civilization.
I used to listen to a podcast from Latvia that reported on the war in Ukraine, I can't remember the name of the show, sorry. The guy seemed to be very knowledgeable about Russia and one thing he stressed was while the Russian military was corrupt and inept, the troops involved with nukes were still highly educated and hand picked and trained by people from within the corps.
So you want to play nuclear poker ? Hey can anyone send this guy to Ukraine.
A giant waste of money. 800 nukes is plenty for pretty much anything and launching 100 would probably mean the end of life as we know it on planet earth. If you wanted to blow a bunch of money on the military there are better ways to do it.
True, but don't tell them that, it's better if they waste money on useless nuclears than genocide technology.
If you wanted to blow a bunch of money on the military there are better ways to do it.
Ohh we got you fam.
Do you mean 100 all at once? Because we’ve been averaging 26.5 per year for the last 80 years
Hmm I don't think so. If it is true those are over the ocean or something. I mean an attack with 100 missiles would destroy nearly any country. Russia is especially vulnerable because they only have a couple of cities with any population in them. Modern nukes are 50-75x the yield of the ones they dropped on Japan. There are all kinds of externalities. They can poison the ground water for generations. They can kill any life feeding in the area. They can cause fallout which is like a radioactive dust cloud covering everything. It isn't good.
Do you want me to link the wiki article? We’ve exploded 2121 nukes since 1945
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
Does the ocean not count as the earth? I don’t see how you go from exploding 100 nukes will end all life on earth to over the ocean doesn’t matter
Also, does 1962 count as modern for you?
You are misunderstanding what I wrote. I'm aware that setting nukes off over the ocean won't end all life in earth. I never said that tho and you might have me mixed up with someone else. I said that it will end life as we know it and it absolutely will, setting nukes off over cities will cause radioactive fallout, as well as destroy power grids, the internet infrastructure. It will poison the water. You have to also remember that it will short out the hundreds of nuclear power plants potentially leading to meltdowns, unless they are fail safe designs. I don't think most plants are designed to withstand an emp. Either way a nuclear war would likely mean a reset for human civilization. If you don't believe this then I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.
Testing for what exactly? Do we not know enough about them already?
Are they trying to figure out what the expiration date is on nuclear warheads? The fuq are they still needing to test for?
Let's just blow up our arsenal for the heck of it boyz, it will make for a good twitter post!
don't indulge his bullshit attempt to rename the DOD
The real crazy people who would cause a nuclear wae are israel and the usa leaders not Iran
That guy is an absolute fud! He sees some other moron do it, and thinks he has to do it too so he looks "alpha"... Talk about your beta bitches, jesus christ.
Seeing how he likes to demolish parts of the White House perhaps the first test could be on the West Wing, with him being in the Oval Office?
This dumbass couldn’t tell you what nuclear testing was if you explained it to him like he was 5
Why does he capitalize random words?



top 100 comments