|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 03 2025 04:25 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2025 03:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
After some wrangling with OPM and their internal HR and command leadership the people I know in the US Navy and FDIC will be answering Elon's emails about what they did at work for the week. Hegseth sent a note out either last night or this morning providing guidance for how to comply. The guidance is actually much more sensible than the original requests from OPM. It addresses things like what to do if you aren't able to reply to the requested e-mails for some reason, or what to do if you don't normally access work e-mail in your job. Show nested quote +Some lazy employees who never were afraid of losing their jobs are now working harder. Citation needed. Preferably not lies from DoGE about this.
Its good to know that after the show email for the crowd who has no idea can feel cool and then a real one for actual employees that is better. This stuff sounds so dumb it is really hard to wrap my head around.
|
On March 03 2025 04:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2025 04:07 Simberto wrote:On March 03 2025 02:52 micronesia wrote:On March 03 2025 02:46 Legan wrote:
Non-proliferation is also impossible if we want more countries to have nuclear power plants. This isn't necessarily true. While it's indeed easier to hide/develop a nuclear weapons program if you already have a nuclear power industry, it's quite possible to demonstrate to the IAEA and others that you aren't dealing with bomb-grade nuclear material. Sure, but afaik that still means that you are only about a year away from nuclear bombs if you ever choose you want them. People are also capable of using the same chemical and biological technology to make WMDs. But the idea for all 3 is the same, if anyone crosses that line a hegemonic power can bomb the shit out of them. In the DPRK's case Bush and China dropped the ball. In the case of European proliferation, it's paradoxically futile. If Russia is a threat to NATO neighbors who only have paper protection, is the thesis, if a bunch of weak little states next to Russia started leaving the NNPT to nuclearize, how do we suppose, in a simplified way, Russia would react? Attack. During that period, they would obviously be vulnerable and have to rely on the nuclear umbrella of the US/UK/France. Yet it's the supposed unreliability of that which was the whole pretext.
No. Macron has already offered an (unknown) form of nuclear cooperation for Europe. You join that, drop NNPT and pool resources with France. You then either develop new ground based launched variants that are deployed in your country or you build more sub based that are deployed on your new submarine.
This way you are covered during the whole process and it culminates in a safer scenario for everyone.
|
Northern Ireland26510 Posts
On March 03 2025 03:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
After some wrangling with OPM and their internal HR and command leadership the people I know in the US Navy and FDIC will be answering Elon's emails about what they did at work for the week.
Some lazy employees who never were afraid of losing their jobs are now working harder. Funny how that works.
The fur is flyin'
Are they working harder or are they just responding to pointless efficiency emails?
It’s a fucking daft process, and ironically extremely inefficient.
My understanding is you’re pretty damn good at your job, which frees up space to watch Asmongold videos and post on here.
Why are you not working more in those hours? Even if you can deliver an acceptable output in 50% of the time that someone else can, that’s not acceptable. You should be working 100% of the time, and give progress emails to that effect.
This is effectively what you’re advocating other people should be subjected to.
If I see you posting on TL within working hours, well that’s inefficiency there. You should be working all the time. If you’re not, your org is inefficient clearly. I feel the mods should just nuke your posts made in this timeframe, just to keep us sweet with DOGE
Alternatively we can not be collective cunts. We can trust internal processes, or not. But if reform is needed it’s sure as fuck not via the DOGE playbook
|
On March 03 2025 04:10 Sadist wrote:
Jimmy I hope your job starts to require that and you see how you like it. Funny to see you cheering on people dealing with the fickleness and stupidity of a tech bro CEO.
Dude‘s already creating several mini-me‘s of himself.
Musk‘s life is an irl breeding simulator erotic game and anyone can find god in a creampie if he looks hard enough.
|
Once again - conventional attack is not to be detered by nukes. It is to counter nuke threat. If Russia f.e. attacks Finland, we want to be able to send the troops there and not be threatened by nuclear attack for doing so. They threat us, we say go ahead. Nuke us and you die. That's how it should work.
|
Northern Ireland26510 Posts
On March 03 2025 04:49 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2025 04:10 Sadist wrote:
Jimmy I hope your job starts to require that and you see how you like it. Funny to see you cheering on people dealing with the fickleness and stupidity of a tech bro CEO.
Dude‘s already creating several mini-me‘s of himself. Musk‘s life is an irl breeding simulator erotic game and anyone can find god in a creampie if he looks hard enough.
The only bonus from this program is Musk doesn’t seem to put much hands-on parenting into his mini eugenics program so at least he doesn’t have much input into how these humans develop
|
On March 03 2025 04:41 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2025 04:29 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2025 04:07 Simberto wrote:On March 03 2025 02:52 micronesia wrote:On March 03 2025 02:46 Legan wrote:
Non-proliferation is also impossible if we want more countries to have nuclear power plants. This isn't necessarily true. While it's indeed easier to hide/develop a nuclear weapons program if you already have a nuclear power industry, it's quite possible to demonstrate to the IAEA and others that you aren't dealing with bomb-grade nuclear material. Sure, but afaik that still means that you are only about a year away from nuclear bombs if you ever choose you want them. People are also capable of using the same chemical and biological technology to make WMDs. But the idea for all 3 is the same, if anyone crosses that line a hegemonic power can bomb the shit out of them. In the DPRK's case Bush and China dropped the ball. In the case of European proliferation, it's paradoxically futile. If Russia is a threat to NATO neighbors who only have paper protection, is the thesis, if a bunch of weak little states next to Russia started leaving the NNPT to nuclearize, how do we suppose, in a simplified way, Russia would react? Attack. During that period, they would obviously be vulnerable and have to rely on the nuclear umbrella of the US/UK/France. Yet it's the supposed unreliability of that which was the whole pretext. No. Macron has already offered an (unknown) form of nuclear cooperation for Europe. You join that, drop NNPT and pool resources with France. You then either develop new ground based launched variants that are deployed in your country or you build more sub based that are deployed on your new submarine. This way you are covered during the whole process and it culminates in a safer scenario for everyone.
How is this supposed to be different than now? You are covered by French nukes while developing a delivery system for your own nukes you buy from France. Okay. But you are covered by the French nukes already. Every country on the border except Belarus (Russia ally) and Ukraine are in NATO now. The only thing that changes is giving more member states the power to unilaterally initiate a nuclear war.
|
On March 03 2025 04:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2025 04:49 Vivax wrote:On March 03 2025 04:10 Sadist wrote:
Jimmy I hope your job starts to require that and you see how you like it. Funny to see you cheering on people dealing with the fickleness and stupidity of a tech bro CEO.
Dude‘s already creating several mini-me‘s of himself. Musk‘s life is an irl breeding simulator erotic game and anyone can find god in a creampie if he looks hard enough. The only bonus from this program is Musk doesn’t seem to put much hands-on parenting into his mini eugenics program so at least he doesn’t have much input into how these humans develop
Maybe they get neuralink‘d at birth and they just tune in to the overlord frequency in their pops brain for some educational blaaargh noises.
|
On March 03 2025 05:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2025 04:41 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On March 03 2025 04:29 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2025 04:07 Simberto wrote:On March 03 2025 02:52 micronesia wrote:On March 03 2025 02:46 Legan wrote:
Non-proliferation is also impossible if we want more countries to have nuclear power plants. This isn't necessarily true. While it's indeed easier to hide/develop a nuclear weapons program if you already have a nuclear power industry, it's quite possible to demonstrate to the IAEA and others that you aren't dealing with bomb-grade nuclear material. Sure, but afaik that still means that you are only about a year away from nuclear bombs if you ever choose you want them. People are also capable of using the same chemical and biological technology to make WMDs. But the idea for all 3 is the same, if anyone crosses that line a hegemonic power can bomb the shit out of them. In the DPRK's case Bush and China dropped the ball. In the case of European proliferation, it's paradoxically futile. If Russia is a threat to NATO neighbors who only have paper protection, is the thesis, if a bunch of weak little states next to Russia started leaving the NNPT to nuclearize, how do we suppose, in a simplified way, Russia would react? Attack. During that period, they would obviously be vulnerable and have to rely on the nuclear umbrella of the US/UK/France. Yet it's the supposed unreliability of that which was the whole pretext. No. Macron has already offered an (unknown) form of nuclear cooperation for Europe. You join that, drop NNPT and pool resources with France. You then either develop new ground based launched variants that are deployed in your country or you build more sub based that are deployed on your new submarine. This way you are covered during the whole process and it culminates in a safer scenario for everyone. How is this supposed to be different than now? You are covered by French nukes while developing a delivery system for your own nukes you buy from France. Okay. But you are covered by the French nukes already. Every country on the border except Belarus (Russia ally) and Ukraine are in NATO now. The only thing that changes is giving more member states the power to unilaterally initiate a nuclear war.
Well, your own example says it is also important who has a finger on a button. If you already admit you would have second thoughts about pushing it in defence of others, than guess what - french might also have.
Also, we don't want to expect the French to commit the suicide on our behalf. If we are to die, we want it be on us and the motherfuckers who nuked us first.
|
What about the scenario where you believe you are covered by french nukes now, but you are not certain that you will be covered by french nukes in 4 years?
After all, 4 years ago, we believed we were covered by US nukes. And the french could always pull a US and elect Le Pen or some shit like that. Taking this time where you actually have a nuclear ally to prepare for a future where you might not have one is quite reasonable.
Even more so if that period of time coincides with a time where Russia is kinda busy and probably doesn't want to start another big war.
Sadly, Trump has shown us that we cannot trust our allies to not go completely batshit and act against their own interests.
|
Here's some context. I don't think anything has changed, Macron just made a vague declaration that he's open to discussion and reafirrmed what was supposed to be true already.
Macron told Portuguese TV RTP in an interview he posted on X on Saturday that if Europe wanted to move towards "greater autonomy" in matters of defence and nuclear deterrence, then its leaders should start a discussion about it. "I am available to open this discussion...if it allows to build a European force," he said. "There has always been a European dimension to France's vital interests within its nuclear doctrine." French far-right leader Marine Le Pen was swift to react to Macron's comments. "The French nuclear deterrent must remain a French nuclear deterrent," she said as she visited the Farm Show in Paris on Saturday. "It must not be shared, let alone delegated." Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu reiterated Macron's stance that France's vital interests include a “European dimension”, but also that it was under the exclusive control of the French head of state. "Our nuclear deterrent is French, and it will remain so: from the design and production of our weapons, to their implementation by decision of the President of the Republic," he said on X. "It protects the vital interests of France, which the head of state alone can define." https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-macron-is-ready-discuss-nuclear-deterrence-europe-2025-03-01/
|
On March 03 2025 05:14 Simberto wrote:
What about the scenario where you believe you are covered by french nukes now, but you are not certain that you will be covered by french nukes in 4 years?
After all, 4 years ago, we believed we were covered by US nukes. And the french could always pull a US and elect Le Pen or some shit like that. Taking this time where you actually have a nuclear ally to prepare for a future where you might not have one is quite reasonable.
Even more so if that period of time coincides with a time where Russia is kinda busy and probably doesn't want to start another big war.
Sadly, Trump has shown us that we cannot trust our allies to not go completely batshit and act against their own interests.
Exactly this.
|
Does that mean Europe stops hosting US nukes where they can hit Russia faster ? That shifts the deterrence in Russia‘s favour.
I have no idea where the war goes after this. It‘s a hit to the US image in either case. They declared neutrality in the war from now on after making sure that it wasn‘t an option for others. Two-faced shit.
|
America did their part. It's just the new administration that pretends they got some "plan" while the only thing they got is delusions.
|
On March 03 2025 05:42 Vivax wrote:
Does that mean Europe stops hosting US nukes where they can hit Russia faster ? That shifts the deterrence in Russia‘s favour.
That's America's problem, isn't it?
I have no idea where the war goes after this. It‘s a hit to the US image in either case. They declared neutrality in the war from now on after making sure that it wasn‘t an option for others. Two-faced shit.
???
|
On March 03 2025 05:54 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2025 05:42 Vivax wrote:
Does that mean Europe stops hosting US nukes where they can hit Russia faster ? That shifts the deterrence in Russia‘s favour. That's America's problem, isn't it? Show nested quote +I have no idea where the war goes after this. It‘s a hit to the US image in either case. They declared neutrality in the war from now on after making sure that it wasn‘t an option for others. Two-faced shit. ???
If other countries acted like Trump did when the war began, other countries might have handled the situation differently.
Ew I worded this poorly. I mean, everyone was counting on providing a share, until the man decided to withdraw his.
But everyone is stuck handling the situation from another point than the starting point where they expected unconditional support from their strongest ally.
It‘s not as easy to pull out for others diplomatically, probably, as it looks like for him.
|
I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying Europe should be able to throw Ukraine to the wolves but Trump made it harder? What are you saying?
|
Apparently, the Carolinas are on fire right now.
Now would be a great time to remind the people of North and South Carolina that they voted against federal aid and FEMA. After all, Trump made a huge promise that only the states experiencing a natural disaster should be the ones to pay for the damages and rebuilding.
|
On March 03 2025 06:58 maybenexttime wrote:
I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying Europe should be able to throw Ukraine to the wolves but Trump made it harder? What are you saying?
If by throwing to the wolves you mean finding an option that doesn‘t involve war, if it exists and doesn’t mean they become part of Russia, then yes.
They‘re attempting to negotiate a ceasefire. Maybe the option exists.
|
On March 03 2025 07:36 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2025 06:58 maybenexttime wrote:
I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying Europe should be able to throw Ukraine to the wolves but Trump made it harder? What are you saying? If by throwing to the wolves you mean finding an option that doesn‘t involve war, if it exists and doesn’t mean they become part of Russia, then yes. They‘re attempting to negotiate a ceasefire. Maybe the option exists. Oh that a super easy question. No there is no option involving war that doesn't mean Ukraine becomes a part of Russia.
That option passed more then 3 years ago (or way back in 2014).
And no I promise you Russia will not accept a cease fire now that they once again have an ally in the WH, at best its a short stay that lets Russia regroup, gives Trump an excuse to lift all sanctions and comes with the stipulation Ukraine is not allowed to be given security guarantees.
Basically 100% in the advantage of Russia or they have no reason to even entertain it. From their perspective they are now going to be winning this war (Because Trump)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
