I wish this was an inflated title but no, he really said this.

America, you need to get rid of this asshole ASAP.

Source: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115460423936412555

Thanks @notarobot@lemmy.zip

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 84 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

And he's doing this while the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is furloughed... 🧐

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The labs which design, test, and build them are not furloughed. Only the federal oversight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Is he unstable enough for the 25th amendment yet? Asking for a friend.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago

    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.
  • source
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    Just shows he is desperately trying to create many more distractions from the Epstein files to see what works.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And who, exactly, is going to get paid to do that? Last I saw 75% of them were furloughed at the moment.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    ffs we're still in 2025 man.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why? They work... We checked.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Even if it wasn't for the other million reasons, this guy's grammar alone should disqualify him from having the nuclear codes.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Unless I'm mistaken Russia has way more nukes than the US still.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 23 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    does anyone know how many of those are operational?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    We would try, but the mods silence us talking about it.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Sorry, could you expand on that a bit? Who’s silencing you and why?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Any suggestion of effective tactics to remove the president are met with removal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    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...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Choose one...global warming or nuclear winter. I think that is our futures only options.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Dumbass probably watched a movie and was like duuuuh that looks cool lolz...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Are any other countries actually actively testing nuclear weapons?
    (I don't think North Korea counts/is.)

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    As if nuking Russia would help. They have the Dead-Hand system. No one wins here.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If it’s anything like the rest of their military equipment, I’m not too worried about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Someone distract Gramps with shiny ballroom pictures again.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Do you mean 100 all at once? Because we’ve been averaging 26.5 per year for the last 80 years

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Testing for what exactly? Do we not know enough about them already?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    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!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    don't indulge his bullshit attempt to rename the DOD

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The real crazy people who would cause a nuclear wae are israel and the usa leaders not Iran

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 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.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    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?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This dumbass couldn’t tell you what nuclear testing was if you explained it to him like he was 5

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    "I don't give a fuck, something racist, several n words. It's gonna help me stay in power and that's all I care about and the only thing that matters." - child rapist president dump

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why does he capitalize random words?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    10 comments in c/BoycottUnitedStates@europe.pub view that post