“I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”
There’s a moral disparity alright, but it’s not the US who has the moral high ground.
“I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”
What kind of reality does this guy live in? Like every adversary he mentions has either adopted a “No First Use” Policy or officially states that nuclear weapons are only to be used when the very existence of the state is threatened via a conventional military force or when being attacked by nuclear weapons. Contrast this to the US which “‘reserves the right to use’ nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict” or the UK which reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against “rogue states” (source: wikipedia article detailing all the above mentioned first use policies). How can you claim to have any moral superiority when your fucking bloc has these murderous policies in place? The western bloc has enshrined first use into its official policy and then this guy claims that only the adversaries of the West are determined to use nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy is beyond me.
US is the first and only country to ever use an atomic bomb. And not just one bomb: two. So of course we wouldn’t launch a preemptive strike, right?
Not to mention that US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, and they didn’t do it for any military purpose. They dropped them on civilian population to show USSR the level of depravity they were capable of.
we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”
See. I don’t think the deterrent was ever meant to be a response to tactical nuclear weapons. They were meant to be a way to make sure that if World ending strategic nuclear weapons were fired against cities, that the response would be absolute.
I wholesale believe that western countries with strategic nuclear weapons would return fire against an attack in our direction. Just as it looked in wargames.
No we’re not going to destroy the world if Russia or any other adversary uses tactical nuclear weapons. We have much more proportionate responses.
Or, maybe I’m just misreading it?
Yeah, I fully expect that the US would start the apocalypse as soon as it was on a back foot in a major conflict.
I’d like to think not. I’d like to think that any NATO nuclear enabled nation would only act in response to strategic nuclear weapons deployed against a NATO ally. But, I guess we’ll only know if/when we get there.
Given the unhinged behavior of the US historically, and being the only nation to use nuclear weapons, I don’t see why you’d expect any restraint.
As much as I like shitting on the US, I think all of the comments here are forgetting that this wouldn’t be a 1v3. It would be a world war. There would be no winners.
Yes, it would be cataclysmic. In the longer term though, I would argue that just about everyone on the planet would be a winner if the US empire were finally put down. You can’t really overstate how much of an impediment the US is to global human welfare and development.
World’s biggest terrorist organisation
I guess “The US will very likely end the world in nuclear hellfire” doesn’t roll of the tongue as well.
I realize this is Lemmy so it is a race to make the most edgelord anti-US comment. I would be remiss if I didn’t remind people of the shocking naivety of this mentality.
It seems many on this board believe that the US would get destroyed, western values would be undermined and some magic communist utopia would just naturally arise the world over in the aftermath. Wrong.
The conflict being described here would be a world war in which multiple large scale nuclear strikes would be deployed. Whatever country you are shitposting from wouldn’t be immune from first order effects, let alone follow-on effects of such a disasterous exchange. Millions would die. You would be better off perishing in the initial salvos than struggling to survive in whatever Mad Max scenario your country devolves into in the resulting hellscape of nuclear fallout, zero international deterrence, likely cessation of emergency services on a local level, and all non local supply chains and communication channels being broken.
So, be careful what you wish for, and don’t hasten the day.
Seems like you misunderstand, nobody wants US to start a world war. In fact, most people outside of US would love it if US would mind its own fucking business instead of running around trying to play world police. Yankees go home.
Bloodthirsty, insane, and suicidal
Americans love to role play at having a democracy, but when push comes to shove the public is never consulted about such monumental decisions like ending human civilization.
Wait sorry, Palantir saying this somehow reflects upon the US? Like I’m not saying that the US is good or bad but Palantir is definitely fucking bad
Honestly yeah, a fascist billionaire’s policy thinktank trying to help gin up a war is reflective of US policy, especially US government policy since they help write it.
it’s certainly on brand but this isn’t the official policy of any country, it’s a billionaire who owns a defense company trying to gin up business. Again, on brand but acting like this is tantamount to or evidence of the US actually doing these things is kind of silly. It’s Palantir, they aren’t a reputable source of anything other than RFPs.
Government tied “independent” think tanks and NGOs are part of the cycle of consent manufacturing that turns the avarice of billionaire ghouls into government policy. The US government is a bunch of banks and weapons manufacturers stacked on top of each other in a trench coat. A government is not a faction: its a tool, a weapon, it has no intention other than the intention of whoever carries it. This one is in the hands of the ultra wealthy and always has been. The desires of rich fucks to make more money is not separable from the actions of the US government: it always informs it. They start wars and genocides for profit. There is no other heuristic guiding the actions of the US empire because there is no faction other than the bourgeoisie that is allowed to control it.
You might as well say “Sure, the shooter is pulling the trigger, but it would be silly to think that reflects on the intentions of the gun.”
So anything any billionaire says is the official policy of the US? What about all the shit they say that doesn’t happen? I get your point but it’s over generalizing
The US government fundamentally represents the interests of the capital owning class. What the billionaires want inevitably becomes official US policy sooner or later. Don’t take my word for it though https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
Who do you think runs the US government exactly?
We elect people to make decisions, that’s the whole concept behind representative government. We vote people in at the federal level who are supposed to protect us - it is one of their key responsibilities according to the constitution.
I understand that the concept of representative governance may be lost on people who have little say on those who govern them.
And just to be clear, no, ours is not a perfect system either. I’d prefer ranked choice to FPP voting, but even that has flaws.
Democracy isn’t about electing people, it’s about having a government that works in the interest of the majority. Western implementation of the concept is clearly broken because the governments consistently act against the interests of the people.
Good news because they’ll lose
You aren’t very bright, are you?
As an American, I am constantly opposing war mongering in my country. They’re are many times when I’ve wanted to simply leave (most notably when Trump first took office). But we can’t leave… The reasonable people need to stay, because the military the US has right now is fucking insane.
Here’s a graph to spell things out for you:
If you want positive change, stop dreaming about the destruction of countries, and start working to change the hearts and minds of those residing in influential countries.
Seems like you’re the one who’s not very bright. Spending doesn’t directly translate into anything tangible. The US military industrial complex is a vehicle for sucking up your taxes and putting them back into the hands of the oligarchs. The incentives it has is to produce overdesigned and expensive weapons that require huge amounts of maintenance in small quantities. This is how you end up with shit like F35. Meanwhile, Russia spending a fraction of what US does can produce three times the artillery shells that all western countries can combined https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
Especially glaring examples is actually UK which have bigger budget than Russia in this graph, yet they admitted they would last 3 weeks in the war as in Ukraine, they have some really embarrassing public fuckup around every month, like the one where they send barely armed ships against Yemen or how their carriers break all the time, and they constantly shrink their army and navy and still have problems with getting enough basic personnel.
Exactly, we’re now seeing that late stage capitalism can’t even keep a military running.
