|
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 |
United States43403 Posts
I also correctly predicted Trump starting this war with a post on TL saying as much. That he’d send the military into another country without declaring war and would insist that it was some kind of law enforcement operation. I guessed Mexico rather than Venezuela but it’s not only been plausible for a while, it’s been more likely than not.On March 04 2025 11:58 KwarK wrote:
I’m betting Mexico because Iran can WMD. Depending on the speed of economic breakdown maybe by the end of the year.
They’ll announce some cross border operations and pretend it’s not war but instead policing of some kind. Mexico will protest but will do the Ukraine 2014 thing where you can’t actually stop the invading army and so you don’t mobilize and you don’t start openly firing missiles. Bad time to have family members in uniform. I don’t think it’s over with just this attack on Venezuela either. It’ll escalate.
|
Look at the bright site! USA under Trump may claim finishing even more wars now.
|
Europe should probably start to consider how ignite the occasionally speculated American civil war. A few million dead Americans is a small price to pay to avoid lost sovereignty. It will keep them busy, and companies may realise the benefits of being in Europe.
|
On January 06 2026 05:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 05:30 pmh wrote:
It seems unlikely to me that the us will make a move against greenland. It would be the end of everything and that would be all it accomplishes.
But maybe that is indeed the goal and that is how the us wants to force it. At this point its beyond repair anyway.
Past year has been very enlightning things are finally starting to make sense. How long ago would we have said the same about the US invading Venezuela? I want to agree with you that the US would never do this. But we're not living in a simple world like that anymore.
I'm honestly surprised Venezuela took this long. I'm even surprised Biden didn't do anything about it.
- The state of the country after Chavez is a tragedy, and there was no chance of improvement.
- Sanctions only made things worse and were not going to have an effect with Russia/Iran/China being involved.
- It was a geopolitical problem in the US backyard.
- Maduro was illegitimate as a president.
- There might have been crimes against US law (who knows?)
I even find the Trump admins argument somewhat compelling. The world has done all it could, it's not helping. We want to put this guy on trial for X. Normally you push the country enough that they extradite him. Not going to happen when he's the president/dictator.
Or you ignore the issue because it's not worth it. But that will allow a shit situation to get worse.
So you go in and get him. Do you break international law? Probably, but not for certain. It's not unreasonable to argue that since Venezuela doesn't have legitimate government there is no one that can say no. Of course only countries who don't recognize Maduro will buy that but it has some merit.
The other alternative is that you let diplomacy slip into war. Is that better? I for sure think not.
|
Crimes against the US law? Since when does the US have jurisdiction over Venezuela?
Also, you're talking as if Trump was trying to establish the democratically elected president, and not a puppet of his choosing. He's planning to rob the country naked, not help it, FFS.
Lastly, there is no indication that there was any regime change. Broadly speaking, the same people are still in power, with a different figurehead.
|
On January 06 2026 07:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 05:34 Gorsameth wrote:On January 06 2026 05:30 pmh wrote:
It seems unlikely to me that the us will make a move against greenland. It would be the end of everything and that would be all it accomplishes.
But maybe that is indeed the goal and that is how the us wants to force it. At this point its beyond repair anyway.
Past year has been very enlightning things are finally starting to make sense. How long ago would we have said the same about the US invading Venezuela? I want to agree with you that the US would never do this. But we're not living in a simple world like that anymore. I'm honestly surprised Venezuela took this long. I'm even surprised Biden didn't do anything about it. - The state of the country after Chavez is a tragedy, and there was no chance of improvement. - Sanctions only made things worse and were not going to have an effect with Russia/Iran/China being involved. - It was a geopolitical problem in the US backyard. - Maduro was illegitimate as a president. - There might have been crimes against US law (who knows?) I even find the Trump admins argument somewhat compelling. The world has done all it could, it's not helping. We want to put this guy on trial for X. Normally you push the country enough that they extradite him. Not going to happen when he's the president/dictator. Or you ignore the issue because it's not worth it. But that will allow a shit situation to get worse. So you go in and get him. Do you break international law? Probably, but not for certain. It's not unreasonable to argue that since Venezuela doesn't have legitimate government there is no one that can say no. Of course only countries who don't recognize Maduro will buy that but it has some merit. The other alternative is that you let diplomacy slip into war. Is that better? I for sure think not. The Trump WH cares about none of that, and happily praise people and countries who are far worse.
Trump was very open about it. the US just stole Venezuela's oil.
And if they want Greenlands resources, they will take those to.
|
On January 06 2026 07:09 maybenexttime wrote:
Crimes against the US law? Since when does the US have jurisdiction over Venezuela?
Also, you're talking as if Trump was trying to establish the democratically elected president, and not a puppet of his choosing. He's planning to rob the country naked, not help it, FFS.
Lastly, there is no indication that there was any regime change. Broadly speaking, the same people are still in power, with a different figurehead.
It's international law it doesn't work like that.
If a country wants someone on charges and he is on a boat with no flag (or their flag) in international waters and they can pick him up they are free to pick him up and bring him home to charge him.
Now, what happens if that person is on land but there is no functional government? Say a criminal wanted by France coups Mali and the French just happens to have a FFL rapid deployment force nearby who figure out where he is. Should they just not go in and pick him up when they can? There is no functional government in Mali anymore so there is no one to ask.
The difference is Venezuela did have a functioning government but the vast majority of countries in the world did not recognize it as a legitimate government of the country (since it lost the election).
So the US goes in and arrests Maduro and now the rest of the world is like, eh he wasn't legitimate anyway and we did state that many times over a long period of time. The countries who thought he was legitimate are of course upset...
The problem is of course that any country can decide that a government is not legitimate for any reason. The benefit is that if an overwhelming amount of countries think it's not the legitimate government your leaders might be a risk (presumably only if you have done something against other countries or maybe crimes against humanity).
Since those governments tends to consist of *very bad* people I don't see it as a huge problem.
|
On January 06 2026 07:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 07:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 05:34 Gorsameth wrote:On January 06 2026 05:30 pmh wrote:
It seems unlikely to me that the us will make a move against greenland. It would be the end of everything and that would be all it accomplishes.
But maybe that is indeed the goal and that is how the us wants to force it. At this point its beyond repair anyway.
Past year has been very enlightning things are finally starting to make sense. How long ago would we have said the same about the US invading Venezuela? I want to agree with you that the US would never do this. But we're not living in a simple world like that anymore. I'm honestly surprised Venezuela took this long. I'm even surprised Biden didn't do anything about it. - The state of the country after Chavez is a tragedy, and there was no chance of improvement. - Sanctions only made things worse and were not going to have an effect with Russia/Iran/China being involved. - It was a geopolitical problem in the US backyard. - Maduro was illegitimate as a president. - There might have been crimes against US law (who knows?) I even find the Trump admins argument somewhat compelling. The world has done all it could, it's not helping. We want to put this guy on trial for X. Normally you push the country enough that they extradite him. Not going to happen when he's the president/dictator. Or you ignore the issue because it's not worth it. But that will allow a shit situation to get worse. So you go in and get him. Do you break international law? Probably, but not for certain. It's not unreasonable to argue that since Venezuela doesn't have legitimate government there is no one that can say no. Of course only countries who don't recognize Maduro will buy that but it has some merit. The other alternative is that you let diplomacy slip into war. Is that better? I for sure think not. The Trump WH cares about none of that, and happily praise people and countries who are far worse. Trump was very open about it. the US just stole Venezuela's oil. And if they want Greenlands resources, they will take those to.
Yeah I know Trump did it for the wrong reasons but the principle is not completely wrong and it did happen to someone who in fact deserved it. I'm just saying I'm not particularly upset about Venezuela even from a "legal" standpoint at this point and I'm surprised something didn't get done earlier.
|
On January 06 2026 04:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 04:53 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2026 04:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 04:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trump’s obsession with Greenland is becoming really, really, really scary. I think we are at an extremely dangerous moment. If he goes for it (and the other branches of government doesn't stop him which they easily can) it's going to be one of the turning points in history. Nothing is going to be the same again and no one is going to predict what happens in the future. A whole bunch of countries are going to get nukes, that's for sure. You think Denmark would end the world over Greenland? Because if the answer is no then nukes don't help.
No, but Greenland might end the world over Greenland.
Which is the point here. If you can no longer trust on your allies to protect you, you need nukes yourself. Having allies with nukes is not good enough.
Every country will need their own nukes in case someone like Trump tries shit. And a lot will try to get them. If Trump goes for Greenland, Canada for example would be insane not to go for nukes immediately.
Of course, the world is a lot more dangerous and a lot closer to ending if everyone has nukes. Which was the point of nuclear nonproliferation treaties.
|
On January 06 2026 07:39 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 04:56 Gorsameth wrote:On January 06 2026 04:53 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2026 04:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 04:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trump’s obsession with Greenland is becoming really, really, really scary. I think we are at an extremely dangerous moment. If he goes for it (and the other branches of government doesn't stop him which they easily can) it's going to be one of the turning points in history. Nothing is going to be the same again and no one is going to predict what happens in the future. A whole bunch of countries are going to get nukes, that's for sure. You think Denmark would end the world over Greenland? Because if the answer is no then nukes don't help. No, but Greenland might end the world over Greenland. Which is the point here. If you can no longer trust on your allies to protect you, you need nukes yourself. Having allies with nukes is not good enough. Every country will need their own nukes in case someone like Trump tries shit. And a lot will try to get them. If Trump goes for Greenland, Canada for example would be insane not to go for nukes immediately. Of course, the world is a lot more dangerous and a lot closer to ending if everyone has nukes. Which was the point of nuclear nonproliferation treaties.
One problem with that is that you're going to have a hard time describing a modern situation where actually using them is the "lesser evil" to not using them.
So it really only helps those willing to destroy all of humanity for selfish reasons.
|
Sure, the point of having nukes is always the threat. "If you invade, we will use these on you". "If you launch nukes at us, we will launch at you"
And yes, realistically the best answer is always not to launch. Because even if Russia is launching a nuclear first strike on the US in the classic cold war scenario, you don't really gain anything by killing all Russians in revenge after you are already dead. The classic "good of humanity" argument.
However, you need to convince the other guy that you will launch, or your deterrence is worthless. That is basic nuclear war theory.
So you need to train your people to actually launch even after they know they are basically already dead. And you need to make this very clear to everyone involved, so that there is not even a sliver of doubt that you will indeed launch. Anything else risks someone else gambling on you choosing not to launch and firststriking you. Training people to launch without contemplating morality and publicly announcing this becomes the best choice of action. But that also means that those people are then very likely to launch.
I recently read the nonfiction book "Nuclear War - A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen. It is an interesting read and a scarily plausible scenario.
|
On January 06 2026 07:36 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 07:09 maybenexttime wrote:
Crimes against the US law? Since when does the US have jurisdiction over Venezuela?
Also, you're talking as if Trump was trying to establish the democratically elected president, and not a puppet of his choosing. He's planning to rob the country naked, not help it, FFS.
Lastly, there is no indication that there was any regime change. Broadly speaking, the same people are still in power, with a different figurehead. It's international law it doesn't work like that. If a country wants someone on charges and he is on a boat with no flag (or their flag) in international waters and they can pick him up they are free to pick him up and bring him home to charge him. Now, what happens if that person is on land but there is no functional government? Say a criminal wanted by France coups Mali and the French just happens to have a FFL rapid deployment force nearby who figure out where he is. Should they just not go in and pick him up when they can? There is no functional government in Mali anymore so there is no one to ask. The difference is Venezuela did have a functioning government but the vast majority of countries in the world did not recognize it as a legitimate government of the country (since it lost the election). So the US goes in and arrests Maduro and now the rest of the world is like, eh he wasn't legitimate anyway and we did state that many times over a long period of time. The countries who thought he was legitimate are of course upset... The problem is of course that any country can decide that a government is not legitimate for any reason. The benefit is that if an overwhelming amount of countries think it's not the legitimate government your leaders might be a risk (presumably only if you have done something against other countries or maybe crimes against humanity). Since those governments tends to consist of *very bad* people I don't see it as a huge problem.
By that logic, should EU put together a rapid response force and arrest Orban?
After all it's a member state, he's at the moment quite unpopular and there is plenty of evidence of his corruption.
Or, let's take it a step further, Vučić is clearly a dictator, his goons are attacking peaceful protesters, his party members assaulted opposition members in their parliament, his minister was caught overseeing a huge weed farm, goons testified about putting his political enemies in a literal meant grinder, why hasn't EU already arrested him?
It's incredibly silly to go around and support this insanity because Maduro was a bad guy, just because a country is close to you and you don't like it's leadership, you are not justified in meddling in their affairs.
The USA did this before, if you forgot, only that time it was communism, now it's drugs and that can mean whatever the fuck they want, their new security doctrine calls for regime change in Europe due to "culture war issues", but sure, cheer their shitting all over international law, seems like a good stance to take.
|
On January 06 2026 07:55 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 07:36 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 07:09 maybenexttime wrote:
Crimes against the US law? Since when does the US have jurisdiction over Venezuela?
Also, you're talking as if Trump was trying to establish the democratically elected president, and not a puppet of his choosing. He's planning to rob the country naked, not help it, FFS.
Lastly, there is no indication that there was any regime change. Broadly speaking, the same people are still in power, with a different figurehead. It's international law it doesn't work like that. If a country wants someone on charges and he is on a boat with no flag (or their flag) in international waters and they can pick him up they are free to pick him up and bring him home to charge him. Now, what happens if that person is on land but there is no functional government? Say a criminal wanted by France coups Mali and the French just happens to have a FFL rapid deployment force nearby who figure out where he is. Should they just not go in and pick him up when they can? There is no functional government in Mali anymore so there is no one to ask. The difference is Venezuela did have a functioning government but the vast majority of countries in the world did not recognize it as a legitimate government of the country (since it lost the election). So the US goes in and arrests Maduro and now the rest of the world is like, eh he wasn't legitimate anyway and we did state that many times over a long period of time. The countries who thought he was legitimate are of course upset... The problem is of course that any country can decide that a government is not legitimate for any reason. The benefit is that if an overwhelming amount of countries think it's not the legitimate government your leaders might be a risk (presumably only if you have done something against other countries or maybe crimes against humanity). Since those governments tends to consist of *very bad* people I don't see it as a huge problem. By that logic, should EU put together a rapid response force and arrest Orban? After all it's a member state, he's at the moment quite unpopular and there is plenty of evidence of his corruption. Or, let's take it a step further, Vučić is clearly a dictator, his goons are attacking peaceful protesters, his party members assaulted opposition members in their parliament, his minister was caught overseeing a huge weed farm, goons testified about putting his political enemies in a literal meant grinder, why hasn't EU already arrested him? It's incredibly silly to go around and support this insanity because Maduro was a bad guy, just because a country is close to you and you don't like it's leadership, you are not justified in meddling in their affairs.
Important to add is that the US has a historically bad track record with this shit. I think the last country which actually got better after a US invasion was either Germany or Japan. But in this century, the US has horribly messed up every attempt at "nationbuilding" they tried.
So even if you are on board with all of this shit, think it is totally valid for the US to meddle in other countries politics if those countries currently have bad politics and so forth, you should at least demand that things are better afterwards to have any relevant case at all. And so far, the US has not shown the capability of actually making other countries better for a long time.
|
On January 06 2026 07:53 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2026 07:39 Simberto wrote:On January 06 2026 04:56 Gorsameth wrote:On January 06 2026 04:53 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2026 04:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 04:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trump’s obsession with Greenland is becoming really, really, really scary. I think we are at an extremely dangerous moment. If he goes for it (and the other branches of government doesn't stop him which they easily can) it's going to be one of the turning points in history. Nothing is going to be the same again and no one is going to predict what happens in the future. A whole bunch of countries are going to get nukes, that's for sure. You think Denmark would end the world over Greenland? Because if the answer is no then nukes don't help. No, but Greenland might end the world over Greenland. Which is the point here. If you can no longer trust on your allies to protect you, you need nukes yourself. Having allies with nukes is not good enough. Every country will need their own nukes in case someone like Trump tries shit. And a lot will try to get them. If Trump goes for Greenland, Canada for example would be insane not to go for nukes immediately. Of course, the world is a lot more dangerous and a lot closer to ending if everyone has nukes. Which was the point of nuclear nonproliferation treaties. One problem with that is that you're going to have a hard time describing a modern situation where actually using them is the "lesser evil" to not using them. So it really only helps those willing to destroy all of humanity for selfish reasons. Sure, the point of having nukes is always the threat. "If you invade, we will use these on you". "If you launch nukes at us, we will launch at you" And yes, realistically the best answer is always not to launch. Because even if Russia is launching a nuclear first strike on the US in the classic cold war scenario, you don't really gain anything by killing all Russians in revenge after you are already dead. The classic "good of humanity" argument. However, you need to convince the other guy that you will launch, or your deterrence is worthless. That is basic nuclear war theory. So you need to train your people to actually launch even after they know they are basically already dead. And you need to make this very clear to everyone involved, so that there is not even a sliver of doubt that you will indeed launch. Anything else risks someone else gambling on you choosing not to launch and firststriking you. Training people to launch without contemplating morality and publicly announcing this becomes the best choice of action. But that also means that those people are then very likely to launch. I recently read the nonfiction book "Nuclear War - A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen. It is an interesting read and a scarily plausible scenario.
No one is going to believe any western democracy (besides the US to the degree it qualifies) won't balk. Not to mention the list of countries that have enough nukes to effectively end China, the US, or Russia (based on habitable land mass) is pretty short.
So let's say Canada actually did get nukes, they can't use them, because they'd mean certain doom for Canada without any hope of even eradicating their targets (whether it's the US, China, or Russia).
If the US decides to conquer Canada, the only rational choice for Canadians is to let them and try to improve their quality of life within whatever system the US imposes on them.
|
On January 06 2026 07:55 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 07:36 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 07:09 maybenexttime wrote:
Crimes against the US law? Since when does the US have jurisdiction over Venezuela?
Also, you're talking as if Trump was trying to establish the democratically elected president, and not a puppet of his choosing. He's planning to rob the country naked, not help it, FFS.
Lastly, there is no indication that there was any regime change. Broadly speaking, the same people are still in power, with a different figurehead. It's international law it doesn't work like that. If a country wants someone on charges and he is on a boat with no flag (or their flag) in international waters and they can pick him up they are free to pick him up and bring him home to charge him. Now, what happens if that person is on land but there is no functional government? Say a criminal wanted by France coups Mali and the French just happens to have a FFL rapid deployment force nearby who figure out where he is. Should they just not go in and pick him up when they can? There is no functional government in Mali anymore so there is no one to ask. The difference is Venezuela did have a functioning government but the vast majority of countries in the world did not recognize it as a legitimate government of the country (since it lost the election). So the US goes in and arrests Maduro and now the rest of the world is like, eh he wasn't legitimate anyway and we did state that many times over a long period of time. The countries who thought he was legitimate are of course upset... The problem is of course that any country can decide that a government is not legitimate for any reason. The benefit is that if an overwhelming amount of countries think it's not the legitimate government your leaders might be a risk (presumably only if you have done something against other countries or maybe crimes against humanity). Since those governments tends to consist of *very bad* people I don't see it as a huge problem. By that logic, should EU put together a rapid response force and arrest Orban? After all it's a member state, he's at the moment quite unpopular and there is plenty of evidence of his corruption. Or, let's take it a step further, Vučić is clearly a dictator, his goons are attacking peaceful protesters, his party members assaulted opposition members in their parliament, his minister was caught overseeing a huge weed farm, goons testified about putting his political enemies in a literal meant grinder, why hasn't EU already arrested him? It's incredibly silly to go around and support this insanity because Maduro was a bad guy, just because a country is close to you and you don't like it's leadership, you are not justified in meddling in their affairs. The USA did this before, if you forgot, only that time it was communism, now it's drugs and that can mean whatever the fuck they want, their new security doctrine calls for regime change in Europe due to "culture war issues", but sure, cheer their shitting all over international law, seems like a good stance to take.
First of all none of Vučić's crimes are in the EU and I believe every single EU country thinks he is still head of a legitimate government.
But let's look at Orban.
Say EU uncovered undeniable proof of direct embezelment of EU funds, drug and weapon smuggling from Hungary in a crime ring Orban runs.
Someone posts an arrest warrant for this that Orban obviously ignores. But he loses the following election so bad that no one believes the fake numbers he claims (except for Russia of course). Using bribes he gets the military and police to brutally crack down on the popular protests, killing enough people to pacify the population.
Now, the entire EU is pissed. They ask the NATO what they would think about intervention. Everyone in NATO agrees Hungary has brought this shit on themselves. EU sets up a rapid reaction force and tells Hungary to hand over Orban. They disagree but informally a couple of generals lets EU know that they won't stand in the way.
So they fly in, blow up a couple of AA sites on the way, nab Orban and fly him to somewhere for trial.
That's an equivalent example.
Because right now Orban A) doesn't have any criminal cases in other EU countries and B) despite what we think of his goverment he won his last election.
|
oh boy, liberal GH is back. In a minute he is going to tell us how MAD means that the chaos and fallout from a violent socialist revolution overthrowing the US government and killing capitalism is justified...
|
On January 06 2026 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 07:53 Simberto wrote:On January 06 2026 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2026 07:39 Simberto wrote:On January 06 2026 04:56 Gorsameth wrote:On January 06 2026 04:53 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2026 04:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 04:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trump’s obsession with Greenland is becoming really, really, really scary. I think we are at an extremely dangerous moment. If he goes for it (and the other branches of government doesn't stop him which they easily can) it's going to be one of the turning points in history. Nothing is going to be the same again and no one is going to predict what happens in the future. A whole bunch of countries are going to get nukes, that's for sure. You think Denmark would end the world over Greenland? Because if the answer is no then nukes don't help. No, but Greenland might end the world over Greenland. Which is the point here. If you can no longer trust on your allies to protect you, you need nukes yourself. Having allies with nukes is not good enough. Every country will need their own nukes in case someone like Trump tries shit. And a lot will try to get them. If Trump goes for Greenland, Canada for example would be insane not to go for nukes immediately. Of course, the world is a lot more dangerous and a lot closer to ending if everyone has nukes. Which was the point of nuclear nonproliferation treaties. One problem with that is that you're going to have a hard time describing a modern situation where actually using them is the "lesser evil" to not using them. So it really only helps those willing to destroy all of humanity for selfish reasons. Sure, the point of having nukes is always the threat. "If you invade, we will use these on you". "If you launch nukes at us, we will launch at you" And yes, realistically the best answer is always not to launch. Because even if Russia is launching a nuclear first strike on the US in the classic cold war scenario, you don't really gain anything by killing all Russians in revenge after you are already dead. The classic "good of humanity" argument. However, you need to convince the other guy that you will launch, or your deterrence is worthless. That is basic nuclear war theory. So you need to train your people to actually launch even after they know they are basically already dead. And you need to make this very clear to everyone involved, so that there is not even a sliver of doubt that you will indeed launch. Anything else risks someone else gambling on you choosing not to launch and firststriking you. Training people to launch without contemplating morality and publicly announcing this becomes the best choice of action. But that also means that those people are then very likely to launch. I recently read the nonfiction book "Nuclear War - A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen. It is an interesting read and a scarily plausible scenario. No one is going to believe any western democracy (besides the US to the degree it qualifies) won't balk. Not to mention the list of countries that have enough nukes to effectively end China, the US, or Russia (based on habitable land mass) is pretty short. So let's say Canada actually did get nukes, they can't use them, because they'd mean certain doom for Canada without any hope of even eradicating their targets (whether it's the US, China, or Russia). If the US decides to conquer Canada, the only rational choice for Canadians is to let them and try to improve their quality of life within whatever system the US imposes on them.
You can use nukes defensively if you want. It's not terribly effective but it's a massive statement.
You can start with nuking an enemy column on your own territory (at the border). Not nice, not particularly effective but the invading country is unlikely to kill both of you over that.
If you are losing badly you can also start using nukes at key enemy logistic points across the border or their airbases if you are getting hammered in the skys.
Both scenarios lets the enemy reconsider their conquests before everyone dies.
Either they accept that you are now nuking military targets, or they wipe you out (which in turn means you wipe them out).
It's generally why nuclear powers prefer not to fight each other conventionally and when they do it's mostly performative (like India and Pakistan). Because there is a massive risk of escalation when someone starts losing since you can absolutely use nukes without MAD but it will immediately push things to a conclusion, which could well be that everyone dies.
Edit: For example, if Denmark somehow had enough second strike capability to more or less blow up the US and the US still invades Greenland then a logical choice could be to nuke the US army bases on Greenland.
It's then up to the US to take the next step. Do they escalate and nuke Denmark? Do they escalate the conventional war because they don't believe Denmark will nuke bases inside the US? Or do they back down?
Now, that's Greenland and I don't think Denmark is willing to put the world on the line for that but for an actual country being up for annexation it's very possible that using a tactical instead of strategic strike sounds like a great idea.
|
On January 06 2026 08:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 07:55 Jankisa wrote:On January 06 2026 07:36 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 07:09 maybenexttime wrote:
Crimes against the US law? Since when does the US have jurisdiction over Venezuela?
Also, you're talking as if Trump was trying to establish the democratically elected president, and not a puppet of his choosing. He's planning to rob the country naked, not help it, FFS.
Lastly, there is no indication that there was any regime change. Broadly speaking, the same people are still in power, with a different figurehead. It's international law it doesn't work like that. If a country wants someone on charges and he is on a boat with no flag (or their flag) in international waters and they can pick him up they are free to pick him up and bring him home to charge him. Now, what happens if that person is on land but there is no functional government? Say a criminal wanted by France coups Mali and the French just happens to have a FFL rapid deployment force nearby who figure out where he is. Should they just not go in and pick him up when they can? There is no functional government in Mali anymore so there is no one to ask. The difference is Venezuela did have a functioning government but the vast majority of countries in the world did not recognize it as a legitimate government of the country (since it lost the election). So the US goes in and arrests Maduro and now the rest of the world is like, eh he wasn't legitimate anyway and we did state that many times over a long period of time. The countries who thought he was legitimate are of course upset... The problem is of course that any country can decide that a government is not legitimate for any reason. The benefit is that if an overwhelming amount of countries think it's not the legitimate government your leaders might be a risk (presumably only if you have done something against other countries or maybe crimes against humanity). Since those governments tends to consist of *very bad* people I don't see it as a huge problem. By that logic, should EU put together a rapid response force and arrest Orban? After all it's a member state, he's at the moment quite unpopular and there is plenty of evidence of his corruption. Or, let's take it a step further, Vučić is clearly a dictator, his goons are attacking peaceful protesters, his party members assaulted opposition members in their parliament, his minister was caught overseeing a huge weed farm, goons testified about putting his political enemies in a literal meant grinder, why hasn't EU already arrested him? It's incredibly silly to go around and support this insanity because Maduro was a bad guy, just because a country is close to you and you don't like it's leadership, you are not justified in meddling in their affairs. The USA did this before, if you forgot, only that time it was communism, now it's drugs and that can mean whatever the fuck they want, their new security doctrine calls for regime change in Europe due to "culture war issues", but sure, cheer their shitting all over international law, seems like a good stance to take. First of all none of Vučić's crimes are in the EU and I believe every single EU country thinks he is still head of a legitimate government. But let's look at Orban. Say EU uncovered undeniable proof of direct embezelment of EU funds, drug and weapon smuggling from Hungary in a crime ring Orban runs. Someone posts an arrest warrant for this that Orban obviously ignores. But he loses the following election so bad that no one believes the fake numbers he claims (except for Russia of course). Using bribes he gets the military and police to brutally crack down on the popular protests, killing enough people to pacify the population. Now, the entire EU is pissed. They ask the NATO what they would think about intervention. Everyone in NATO agrees Hungary has brought this shit on themselves. EU sets up a rapid reaction force and tells Hungary to hand over Orban. They disagree but informally a couple of generals lets EU know that they won't stand in the way. So they fly in, blow up a couple of AA sites on the way, nab Orban and fly him to somewhere for trial. That's an equivalent example. Because right now Orban A) doesn't have any criminal cases in other EU countries and B) despite what we think of his goverment he won his last election.
On the first point, for the "Serbia is not in the EU" argument to work, Venezuela would have to be part of the US, so I don't think that flies.
Let's say Serbia had elections tomorrow, they were clearly rigged, but it's still not EU, is it still OK for EU to go ahead and topple the government of a non-EU member?
On the Orban example, I would still absolutely expect the EU to bring the evidence before the international court of justice, get a warrant and move from there.
This is a court that has legitimacy, enough that Orban preemptively had Hungary leave last year. This is how these things are supposed to play out, theoretically.
What US did is illegal, brazen and extremely problematic, and supporting it in any way is inviting a terrible future, in my opinion.
|
On January 06 2026 05:19 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 00:45 hitthat wrote:On January 05 2026 23:12 zeo wrote:On January 05 2026 18:25 hitthat wrote:On January 05 2026 17:35 ETisME wrote:On January 04 2026 22:56 Sermokala wrote:On January 04 2026 15:27 ETisME wrote:On January 03 2026 22:49 Sermokala wrote:
Crazy part is that there was just no need for this. Biden had done enough with the other nations in the carribiean to create a more profiable and more efficent oil industry with its neighbors. All Trump had to do was to present this evidence to Maduros backers and show how being friendly with the US was more profitable than being enemies.
But yeah lets just continue the cold war and make everyone hate us in the region again. I'm sure there will be no blowback for kidnapping a head of state within their own nation by military force and killing a bunch of people in the process. that will never happen, and honestly a very naive take to the whole situation. Madurors wasn't in it for the money itself, but that Russia and China etc are giving him plenty of staying power. Power comes before money/wealth. There's a tiny fraction of venezuela population who would be against this, the nation had been suffering a F ton. 2025 nobel peace prize winner herself wanted US arms intervention to force the transition. The whole thing is controversial move, but not only was it a power move against Russia and china, Russia asked US to stop targetting tanker a day before https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/russia-asks-us-to-stop-pursuit-of-fleeing-oil-tanker-claims-authority/ar-AA1TpN1F?ocid=BingNewsSerpChina top diplomat literally met with Maduro hours before the strike https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-condemns-us-strike-in-venezuela-hours-after-top-diplomat-met-with-maduro/ar-AA1Tw96J?ocid=BingNewsSerpIt also ensures national interest of the US there in the region. Also those who are talking like the US wants the Oil and therefore they intervene, what do you think Russia and China are there for? welcome to politics in the real world. Some of you want checks and balances against the US, it's a good reminder the past couple of decades of relative peace wasn't because Russia/China was a strong check and balance against the west. It's because they had arms superiority and geopolitical power. I don't think you understand the scale of this. Money isn't power, until we're talking about oil industry money. The man himself may value the notion of being in control more than being uber wealthy but his backers would definitly be interested in being a billion dollars richer. Chevron itself makes more in revenue than the nation of Venesuela. The people would love to have a nation that is now rich in dollars and can take advantage of their natural wealth. You can afford a lot of bread and circus for the people when you've got the worlds largest reserve status. I don't know why you'd think the people would be more against america becoming friends with venesuela and offering the nation vast riches over supporting the nth coup in south america the the united states has been responsible for. I can't imagine it would be easy to find a south american who would be supportive of the banana republics. Chevron is ALLOWED to be stayed in power supported by China and Russia, it isn't money that allowed him to stay in power. Either way, Europeans and lefties will cry about this happening. That's why no one in oppressed status like Taiwan/Phillipiness/HongKong bother looking for European's support, no one expects anything meaningful from them, other than a few nice gestures and statements. Funny. Last time I checked european countries sent a shit tone of arms to Ukraine, with my own country sending 1/3rd of our tanks and opening borders for whoever wanted free passage, and progressively embargoed Russia for anything they could, what almost put eastern european countries on the brink of war with Russia and Belarus. For now it was mostly european countries who provided cannon fodder to America for their vendetas against the whatever middle east ever spawned. But hey, lets call them inept because they don't threat anyone with annexation or nuclear annihilation. Nobody said being a dog of the Empire was easy, I'm sure the Europeans enjoy their pats on the head. Wow, your pride of being heirs of non-aligned movement is almost touching. One would wonder how you ended up engaged in secesionist wars after chosing such an easy path. Obviously the hard route was being a good boy and pissing all over International Law for the last 35 years to get all those pats on the head from Master. Master loves us, we sent our men to die for him in his illegal wars, we sent all our weapons to countries we had nothing to do with against countries that posed no threat to us. Surely he wouldn't hurt his most faithful dog 
Your posts are proof that Serbia didn't get bombed hard enough.
|
On January 06 2026 08:22 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 08:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 07:55 Jankisa wrote:On January 06 2026 07:36 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 07:09 maybenexttime wrote:
Crimes against the US law? Since when does the US have jurisdiction over Venezuela?
Also, you're talking as if Trump was trying to establish the democratically elected president, and not a puppet of his choosing. He's planning to rob the country naked, not help it, FFS.
Lastly, there is no indication that there was any regime change. Broadly speaking, the same people are still in power, with a different figurehead. It's international law it doesn't work like that. If a country wants someone on charges and he is on a boat with no flag (or their flag) in international waters and they can pick him up they are free to pick him up and bring him home to charge him. Now, what happens if that person is on land but there is no functional government? Say a criminal wanted by France coups Mali and the French just happens to have a FFL rapid deployment force nearby who figure out where he is. Should they just not go in and pick him up when they can? There is no functional government in Mali anymore so there is no one to ask. The difference is Venezuela did have a functioning government but the vast majority of countries in the world did not recognize it as a legitimate government of the country (since it lost the election). So the US goes in and arrests Maduro and now the rest of the world is like, eh he wasn't legitimate anyway and we did state that many times over a long period of time. The countries who thought he was legitimate are of course upset... The problem is of course that any country can decide that a government is not legitimate for any reason. The benefit is that if an overwhelming amount of countries think it's not the legitimate government your leaders might be a risk (presumably only if you have done something against other countries or maybe crimes against humanity). Since those governments tends to consist of *very bad* people I don't see it as a huge problem. By that logic, should EU put together a rapid response force and arrest Orban? After all it's a member state, he's at the moment quite unpopular and there is plenty of evidence of his corruption. Or, let's take it a step further, Vučić is clearly a dictator, his goons are attacking peaceful protesters, his party members assaulted opposition members in their parliament, his minister was caught overseeing a huge weed farm, goons testified about putting his political enemies in a literal meant grinder, why hasn't EU already arrested him? It's incredibly silly to go around and support this insanity because Maduro was a bad guy, just because a country is close to you and you don't like it's leadership, you are not justified in meddling in their affairs. The USA did this before, if you forgot, only that time it was communism, now it's drugs and that can mean whatever the fuck they want, their new security doctrine calls for regime change in Europe due to "culture war issues", but sure, cheer their shitting all over international law, seems like a good stance to take. First of all none of Vučić's crimes are in the EU and I believe every single EU country thinks he is still head of a legitimate government. But let's look at Orban. Say EU uncovered undeniable proof of direct embezelment of EU funds, drug and weapon smuggling from Hungary in a crime ring Orban runs. Someone posts an arrest warrant for this that Orban obviously ignores. But he loses the following election so bad that no one believes the fake numbers he claims (except for Russia of course). Using bribes he gets the military and police to brutally crack down on the popular protests, killing enough people to pacify the population. Now, the entire EU is pissed. They ask the NATO what they would think about intervention. Everyone in NATO agrees Hungary has brought this shit on themselves. EU sets up a rapid reaction force and tells Hungary to hand over Orban. They disagree but informally a couple of generals lets EU know that they won't stand in the way. So they fly in, blow up a couple of AA sites on the way, nab Orban and fly him to somewhere for trial. That's an equivalent example. Because right now Orban A) doesn't have any criminal cases in other EU countries and B) despite what we think of his goverment he won his last election. On the first point, for the "Serbia is not in the EU" argument to work, Venezuela would have to be part of the US, so I don't think that flies. Let's say Serbia had elections tomorrow, they were clearly rigged, but it's still not EU, is it still OK for EU to go ahead and topple the government of a non-EU member? On the Orban example, I would still absolutely expect the EU to bring the evidence before the international court of justice, get a warrant and move from there. This is a court that has legitimacy, enough that Orban preemptively had Hungary leave last year. This is how these things are supposed to play out, theoretically. What US did is illegal, brazen and extremely problematic, and supporting it in any way is inviting a terrible future, in my opinion.
Has Serbia done something towards the EU? No.
They can still intervene, but it's war. Is that a good thing? I would argue it's not. Perhaps if Serbia were somehow a very big threat to EU for geopolitical reasons or if there was an active genocide then maybe intervention could be justified on humanitarian grounds. But it's still war.
ICJ has no standing towards national crimes which is obviously why Trump used this excuse.
As a rule I'm extremely against interventions in other countries internal politics but there are a lot of reasons for Venezuela/Maduro to be a solid exception to that rule.
I'm not sure what the case actually becomes when a recognized state under constitutive theory no longer has a legitimate government. For sure it's not an unrecognized state since we separate state and government and the statehood hasn't changed but it's going to become a bit of a gray area.
And if you go by constitutive theory unrecognized states aren't bound by international law. Which is not only in theory because international law is mostly just what the nations of the world currently think the rules for their club is and if the other nations don't consider you a country (say Somaliland which is a de facto state under declarative theory but is not considered a state, except for very recently by Israel) then they don't deal with you in that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
