|
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 |
I am really concerned by Tim Walz pulling out of his re-election campaign. Its hard for me to find little of any details of what he "did" or why the childcare fraud thing should be his responsibility. It just seems to me that the right wing media ecosphere used it to attack him over and over to the point it somehow sticks to him based on assosciation? Yet somehow no convictions or allegations, overt conflict of interests, lawsuits stick to the other side? Why resign here? I think itll just embolden them more.
|
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.
The point of having nukes as a deterrent is that you convince people you aren't rational and will act like a complete lunatic if you get attacked. The rational thing to do is never to nuke anybody. Whether you are Canada and have 1 nuke or the US and enough nukes to glass the planet thrice over: using any nuke at all is profoundly irrational. And for MAD to work you need to make everybody believe you are profoundly irrational: if you cross my self-declared red lines, I will throw a nuke in your face. If people don't believe you, and cross your red line, a rational actor should not retaliate with nukes. But do you nuke in retaliation? Only a truly insane person would. However that is exactly what you tried to convince people you were. If you do use your nukes, then best case, you kill a few hundred thousand civilians, and worst case the world essentially ends (if other people also act just as irrationally as they said they would). If you don't, then people stop believing you'd use your nukes for other red lines you might have claimed. Or for the sake of simplicity, we can assume this was already the "we invade your capital and depose your government" red line, and you let that happen, because it is preferable to literally ending the world. So now you are a colony, but at least the world didn't end. Clearly preferable, but you are still a colony: clearly a worse outcome than if people had believed you would irrationally nuke and they had rationally decided not to FAFO with your red lines.
With only a single nuke, Canada could target Manhattan, killing a million people or so. That threat should be sufficient, if believed, to stop the US from invading Canada. It is irrelevant to the calculus whether the US would then retaliate in turn and glass all of Canada. Actually launching a bomb to kill 1million innocent civilians is already insane and no rational actor would do it. It wouldn't stop the army that is invading Ottawa. It would simply kill a whole load of civilians. Whether the US also acts irrationally in response is irrelevant. The whole point of having a nuke is to then convince people you'll use it, and they'd better not fucking try to invade you or you'll target a nuke at their seat of government/densest populated area/somewhere else important.
|
On January 06 2026 08:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: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.
Simply having nukes doesn't make a country capable of MAD though. You have to be able to deliver enough of them past any defenses (to prevent them from even arriving on target) and then penetrate heavily fortified fortresses to hit key targets.
You also need to have enough to deter the next nuclear powers from taking advantage of the fact that you depleted your arsenal trying to destroy the last aggressor.
MAD assumes not just the "unacceptable and catastrophic damage" the French nuclear arsenal is ostensibly capable of (against just one major nuclear power btw) for example, but the capacity to annihilate your enemy/(ies) entirely.
|
United States43401 Posts
No, Acrofales is correct. Total destruction is not required, even at the height of the Cold War total destruction was never likely. You just need enough of a threat to make crossing a red line not worth it. One suitcase nuke smuggled into Manhattan would be sufficient.
|
On January 06 2026 10:18 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +The point of having nukes as a deterrent is that you convince people you aren't rational and will act like a complete lunatic if you get attacked. The rational thing to do is never to nuke anybody. Whether you are Canada and have 1 nuke or the US and enough nukes to glass the planet thrice over: using any nuke at all is profoundly irrational. And for MAD to work you need to make everybody believe you are profoundly irrational: if you cross my self-declared red lines, I will throw a nuke in your face. If people don't believe you, and cross your red line, a rational actor should not retaliate with nukes. But do you nuke in retaliation? Only a truly insane person would. However that is exactly what you tried to convince people you were. If you do use your nukes, then best case, you kill a few hundred thousand civilians, and worst case the world essentially ends (if other people also act just as irrationally as they said they would). If you don't, then people stop believing you'd use your nukes for other red lines you might have claimed. Or for the sake of simplicity, we can assume this was already the "we invade your capital and depose your government" red line, and you let that happen, because it is preferable to literally ending the world. So now you are a colony, but at least the world didn't end. Clearly preferable, but you are still a colony: clearly a worse outcome than if people had believed you would irrationally nuke and they had rationally decided not to FAFO with your red lines.
With only a single nuke, Canada could target Manhattan, killing a million people or so. That threat should be sufficient, if believed, to stop the US from invading Canada. It is irrelevant to the calculus whether the US would then retaliate in turn and glass all of Canada. Actually launching a bomb to kill 1million innocent civilians is already insane and no rational actor would do it. It wouldn't stop the army that is invading Ottawa. It would simply kill a whole load of civilians. Whether the US also acts irrationally in response is irrelevant. The whole point of having a nuke is to then convince people you'll use it, and they'd better not fucking try to invade you or you'll target a nuke at their seat of government/densest populated area/somewhere else important.
Part of what I'm saying is I can absolutely, with total certainty, assure you that Canada could only convince the US (especially Trumpers) it would nuke Manhattan by nuking Manhattan. Canada would obviously rather be a colony/some number of states. Everyone knows that's what they'll choose, including Trump/the Project 2025 fascists.
Logistically, it may take longer than Trump has, but the US has embarked on a new/old kind of 21st century colonial project that only a relatively unified global opposition (that sounds like a fantasy just saying it) can hope to stop.
On January 06 2026 10:25 KwarK wrote:
No, Acrofales is correct. Total destruction is not required, even at the height of the Cold War total destruction was never likely. You just need enough of a threat to make crossing a red line not worth it. One suitcase nuke smuggled into Manhattan would be sufficient.
Recognizing the threat requires a level of awareness the US (especially Trumpers) is demonstrably not in possession of.
|
United States43401 Posts
GH has just disproved nuclear game theory. After all no rational actor would ever actually do it.
|
On January 06 2026 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 08:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 06 2026 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Simply having nukes doesn't make a country capable of MAD though. You have to be able to deliver enough of them past any defenses (to prevent them from even arriving on target) and then penetrate heavily fortified fortresses to hit key targets. You also need to have enough to deter the next nuclear powers from taking advantage of the fact that you depleted your arsenal trying to destroy the last aggressor. MAD assumes not just the "unacceptable and catastrophic damage" the French nuclear arsenal is ostensibly capable of (against just one major nuclear power btw) for example, but the capacity to annihilate your enemy/(ies) entirely.
What on earth are you talking about? That isn't how MAD works. If the French are launching nukes, MAD failed. Let's for the sake of it, assume the US invaded French Guyana and Macron did the irrational thing and launched all of their 290 warheads to glass half of the USA. The response from the remaining US government, in a nuclear hellscape, is clearly not going to be to giggle in glee that the French are now out of nukes and ripe for the picking. Nor is France going to worry overly much about being out of nukes, and unable to retaliate against China as well when they now take Tahiti.
|
On January 06 2026 10:30 KwarK wrote:
GH has just disproved nuclear game theory. After all no rational actor would ever actually do it.
Phew! Good thing Trump and Hegseth are thoughtful intellectuals deeply engaged in game theory and not just some "Alphas ready to fuck shit up" in control of the world's most dangerous/capable military/nuclear arsenal (full of idiotic sycophants, because everyone else is being purged) with the capacity to fuck the whole world up over any pissing contest they might stumble into.
|
|
|
United States43401 Posts
GH learning about the Cold War: “I don’t get it, are the Politburo dumb? Nobody could really believe that the Americans would be willing to all die over West Berlin”.
GH learning about political parties: “It’s simply not realistic. These people would never cooperate in the real world”.
GH learning about elections: “So we’re supposed to believe that individuals bother voting even though it’s never decided by just one vote? It doesn’t make sense.”
GH learning about revolutionary socialism: “Yep, that all makes sense, no follow-up questions required.”
|
On January 06 2026 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 10:18 Acrofales wrote:On January 06 2026 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +The point of having nukes as a deterrent is that you convince people you aren't rational and will act like a complete lunatic if you get attacked. The rational thing to do is never to nuke anybody. Whether you are Canada and have 1 nuke or the US and enough nukes to glass the planet thrice over: using any nuke at all is profoundly irrational. And for MAD to work you need to make everybody believe you are profoundly irrational: if you cross my self-declared red lines, I will throw a nuke in your face. If people don't believe you, and cross your red line, a rational actor should not retaliate with nukes. But do you nuke in retaliation? Only a truly insane person would. However that is exactly what you tried to convince people you were. If you do use your nukes, then best case, you kill a few hundred thousand civilians, and worst case the world essentially ends (if other people also act just as irrationally as they said they would). If you don't, then people stop believing you'd use your nukes for other red lines you might have claimed. Or for the sake of simplicity, we can assume this was already the "we invade your capital and depose your government" red line, and you let that happen, because it is preferable to literally ending the world. So now you are a colony, but at least the world didn't end. Clearly preferable, but you are still a colony: clearly a worse outcome than if people had believed you would irrationally nuke and they had rationally decided not to FAFO with your red lines.
With only a single nuke, Canada could target Manhattan, killing a million people or so. That threat should be sufficient, if believed, to stop the US from invading Canada. It is irrelevant to the calculus whether the US would then retaliate in turn and glass all of Canada. Actually launching a bomb to kill 1million innocent civilians is already insane and no rational actor would do it. It wouldn't stop the army that is invading Ottawa. It would simply kill a whole load of civilians. Whether the US also acts irrationally in response is irrelevant. The whole point of having a nuke is to then convince people you'll use it, and they'd better not fucking try to invade you or you'll target a nuke at their seat of government/densest populated area/somewhere else important. Part of what I'm saying is I can absolutely, with total certainty, assure you that Canada could only convince the US (especially Trumpers) it would nuke Manhattan by nuking Manhattan. Canada would obviously rather be a colony/some number of states. Everyone knows that's what they'll choose, including Trump/the Project 2025 fascists. Logistically, it may take longer than Trump has, but the US has embarked on a new/old kind of 21st century colonial project that only a relatively unified global opposition (that sounds like a fantasy just saying it) can hope to stop. Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 10:25 KwarK wrote:
No, Acrofales is correct. Total destruction is not required, even at the height of the Cold War total destruction was never likely. You just need enough of a threat to make crossing a red line not worth it. One suitcase nuke smuggled into Manhattan would be sufficient. Recognizing the threat requires a level of awareness the US (especially Trumpers) is demonstrably not in possession of.
That's most of the point. If you're unable to convince people that you're a crazy lunatic who is fully capable of blowing up Manhattan, then a nuke won't work as a deterrent. Much the same way that we already crossed a whole bunch of "red lines" with Russia because absolutely nobody believes Putin when he claimed that giving Storm Shadows, ATACMS or F-16s to Ukraine would be answered with a nuke. It doesn't work as a deterrent if nobody believes you.
But that just means you need to work more on being crazy. Canada would need to prove they're more insane than the US thinks. Maybe by flying military planes over Detroit , Minnesota and Alaska a bunch. Or firing missile tests into the Arctic. Or so. You know, the kinda stuff China, Russia and North Korea do fairly regularly. Why do you believe Xi Yinping would glass the USA if the US landed an invasion in Hong Kong, but you don't believe Canada would if the US invaded Toronto?
There is of course also the second component of capability. Ottawa is sufficiently close to the USA that if the US can fly into Venezuela and grab Maduro before he can hide in a bunker, it's almost guaranteed that they can do the same to Carney before he can go through some arduous safety protocols for launching nukes. Meaning now Canada doesn't only need a nuke, but also a single panic button to launch them that the prime minister carries around in his pocket.
|
Part of the deterrence of MAD is that the leaders are being put in a no-win situation and may act irrationally. The leaders won't necessarily do what's best for the rest of the country. If they're already going to die, they may very well be irrational and vengeful.
If we sent a missile to take out Putin and he knew he couldn't avoid it, his last act may be to order nuclear launches. Or he may have a dead-hand switch. Does he really care about Russia or would he prefer revenge against whoever killed him? I think someone like Putin could prefer revenge even at the cost of all other Russians.
|
On January 06 2026 11:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2026 10:18 Acrofales wrote:On January 06 2026 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. + Show Spoiler +The point of having nukes as a deterrent is that you convince people you aren't rational and will act like a complete lunatic if you get attacked. The rational thing to do is never to nuke anybody. Whether you are Canada and have 1 nuke or the US and enough nukes to glass the planet thrice over: using any nuke at all is profoundly irrational. And for MAD to work you need to make everybody believe you are profoundly irrational: if you cross my self-declared red lines, I will throw a nuke in your face. If people don't believe you, and cross your red line, a rational actor should not retaliate with nukes. But do you nuke in retaliation? Only a truly insane person would. However that is exactly what you tried to convince people you were. If you do use your nukes, then best case, you kill a few hundred thousand civilians, and worst case the world essentially ends (if other people also act just as irrationally as they said they would). If you don't, then people stop believing you'd use your nukes for other red lines you might have claimed. Or for the sake of simplicity, we can assume this was already the "we invade your capital and depose your government" red line, and you let that happen, because it is preferable to literally ending the world. So now you are a colony, but at least the world didn't end. Clearly preferable, but you are still a colony: clearly a worse outcome than if people had believed you would irrationally nuke and they had rationally decided not to FAFO with your red lines.
With only a single nuke, Canada could target Manhattan, killing a million people or so. That threat should be sufficient, if believed, to stop the US from invading Canada. It is irrelevant to the calculus whether the US would then retaliate in turn and glass all of Canada. Actually launching a bomb to kill 1million innocent civilians is already insane and no rational actor would do it. It wouldn't stop the army that is invading Ottawa. It would simply kill a whole load of civilians. Whether the US also acts irrationally in response is irrelevant. The whole point of having a nuke is to then convince people you'll use it, and they'd better not fucking try to invade you or you'll target a nuke at their seat of government/densest populated area/somewhere else important. Part of what I'm saying is I can absolutely, with total certainty, assure you that Canada could only convince the US (especially Trumpers) it would nuke Manhattan by nuking Manhattan. Canada would obviously rather be a colony/some number of states. Everyone knows that's what they'll choose, including Trump/the Project 2025 fascists. Logistically, it may take longer than Trump has, but the US has embarked on a new/old kind of 21st century colonial project that only a relatively unified global opposition (that sounds like a fantasy just saying it) can hope to stop. On January 06 2026 10:25 KwarK wrote:
No, Acrofales is correct. Total destruction is not required, even at the height of the Cold War total destruction was never likely. You just need enough of a threat to make crossing a red line not worth it. One suitcase nuke smuggled into Manhattan would be sufficient. Recognizing the threat requires a level of awareness the US (especially Trumpers) is demonstrably not in possession of. That's most of the point. If you're unable to convince people that you're a crazy lunatic who is fully capable of blowing up Manhattan, then a nuke won't work as a deterrent. + Show Spoiler +Much the same way that we already crossed a whole bunch of "red lines" with Russia because absolutely nobody believes Putin when he claimed that giving Storm Shadows, ATACMS or F-16s to Ukraine would be answered with a nuke. It doesn't work as a deterrent if nobody believes you.
But that just means you need to work more on being crazy. Canada would need to prove they're more insane than the US thinks. Maybe by flying military planes over Detroit , Minnesota and Alaska a bunch. Or firing missile tests into the Arctic. Or so. You know, the kinda stuff China, Russia and North Korea do fairly regularly. Why do you believe Xi Yinping would glass the USA if the US landed an invasion in Hong Kong, but you don't believe Canada would if the US invaded Toronto? There is of course also the second component of capability. Ottawa is sufficiently close to the USA that if the US can fly into Venezuela and grab Maduro before he can hide in a bunker, it's almost guaranteed that they can do the same to Carney before he can go through some arduous safety protocols for launching nukes. Meaning now Canada doesn't only need a nuke, but also a single panic button to launch them that the prime minister carries around in his pocket.
And Canada isn't going to convince Trumpers that they'll even get that sort of panic button (without publicly doing it, inviting the US to act ahead of time), let alone actually pressing it instead of just getting dragged into a US prison (and maybe sent somewhere nice to live in exile if you play along).
I also don't think you can convince Canadians to even go down the path of getting nukes instead of just thinking they can negotiate acceptable terms (like maybe they don't have to change anything but switch their monarch to Trump lol).
|
United States43401 Posts
GH really believes that he has disproved the Cold War.
|
On January 06 2026 10:13 Sadist wrote:
I am really concerned by Tim Walz pulling out of his re-election campaign. Its hard for me to find little of any details of what he "did" or why the childcare fraud thing should be his responsibility. It just seems to me that the right wing media ecosphere used it to attack him over and over to the point it somehow sticks to him based on assosciation? Yet somehow no convictions or allegations, overt conflict of interests, lawsuits stick to the other side? Why resign here? I think itll just embolden them more.
Its a thing thats been under investigation for years. GOP was asked to fund it in hortmans last term but they said no.
His daughter said that the family had been getting pretty heavy death threats and thats why hes pulling out of the race. Traditionally minnesota governors only do two terms anyway.
Its really sad to let facists win but the guy wants to protect his family and I can't fault him for that. Right wing crazies are more than comfortable encouraging and washing assassinations of politicians these days.
|
So, Trump keeps saying that the USA is in charge of Venezuela, but we don't have any boots on the ground. We don't have a US friendly leader in charge either (it's Maduro's VP). We don't seem to have any plans at all. So how exactly are we in charge? I have a theory.
I think Trump is going to try to rule Venezuela by threat. He's going to make a demand and threaten to kill/kidnap her if she doesn't agree to it. When she refuses, he follows through on the kidnapping/killing and then a new leader is put in place and the cycle repeats until they find someone who will follow his commands. At that point, the US gets whatever it wants out of Venezuela with very little direct risk. We're not going in to build anything... international contractors and local labor will build oil extraction infrastructure. We're not sending troops in to keep the peace. We don't give a shit about Venezuela at all, except as a place to extract wealth.
Anything that goes wrong, the blame gets shifted to the Venezuelan "leader". Anything that goes right, Trump takes the credit.
It's quite evil, but I can almost appreciate how Machiavellian(?) it is. If it wasn't for the total loss of good will around the world, I could call it intelligent (in an evil way). But that good will already seems to be gone anyways.
Unfortunately, That Mitchell and Webb "are we the baddies?" meme doesn't even apply anymore. We are. The long term consequences could be quite devastating, but that's for a future president to fix.
|
Trump says the U.S. government may reimburse oil companies for rebuilding Venezuela's infrastructure@NBC
By Kristen Welker and Steve Kopack
President Donald Trump said he believes the U.S. oil industry could get expanded operations in Venezuela "up and running" in fewer than 18 months.
"I think we can do it in less time than that, but it’ll be a lot of money," Trump told NBC News in an interview Monday.
"A tremendous amount of money will have to be spent, and the oil companies will spend it, and then they’ll get reimbursed by us or through revenue," he said.
Whether the U.S. government ultimately agrees to reimburse the oil industry's costs in Venezuela, or alternatively, decides that future revenue is sufficient repayment, will likely be a key factor for the oil companies as they consider their options.
Trump declined to say how much money he believes it would cost companies to repair and upgrade Venezuela's aging oil infrastructure.
"It’ll be a very substantial amount of money will be spent" by the oil companies, Trump said. "But they’ll do very well."
"And the country will do well," he added.
Despite Trump's optimism, oil companies have appeared skeptical of quickly entering, expanding or investing in Venezuela. A history of state asset seizures, the ongoing U.S. sanctions and the latest political instability all feed into this caution.
Trump said he believed that tapping Venezuela's oil reserves is "going to reduce oil prices."
Gas prices are already at multiyear lows. The average retail gas price on Monday was $2.81, according to AAA. That's the lowest since March 2021.
"Having a Venezuela that’s an oil producer is good for the United States because it keeps the price of oil down," Trump also added.
While lower oil prices could make gas cheaper at the pump, it would likely also mean lower revenues for the same big oil companies that Trump is counting on to bankroll the rebuilding of Venezuela’s oil industry to the tune of billions of dollars in foreign investment.
Asked if the administration had briefed any oil companies ahead of Saturday's military operation to capture deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Trump said, "No. But we’ve been talking to the concept of, 'what if we did it?'"
"The oil companies were absolutely aware that we were thinking about doing something," Trump said. "But we didn’t tell them we were going to do it."
privatise the "loot", socialise the losses... it's gonna be interesting what the reactions/potential blowback will be once things settle a bit and things get clearer after this dog and pony show.
|
What‘s gonna happen to Uchiha Maduro in NY ?
|
On January 06 2026 08:47 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2026 08:22 Jankisa wrote: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.
I disagree. Interventions in other countries should be an absolutely last resort. If some other country is posing a danger to you and does hostile actions on your territory you sure as hell can do interventions, declare war on them etc. But not if you just don't like the people in charge there. Sure, if whoever is in charge is not recognized as a legitimate leader (be it democratic or dictator) is oppressing his own people and the opposition there asks you for help in removing them and getting a proper government in place you may consider it. Basically acting on behalf of the people of the other country as their ally to help fix their internal problem but not as someone from the outside trying to impose your will on them.
Edit:
Imagine if Trump admin's narrative over Venezuela was this: The opposition in Venezuela has reached out to us for help in removing illegitimate regime that's using foreign military assets to back them up so that the proper democratically elected government can be re-established. We agreed to help as this would be beneficial for both of our countries and will restore valuable trade relations.
We would be talking a totally different game right now. Instead we got "We don't like Maduro and what he's doing and we want to control their natural resources."
|
On January 06 2026 14:55 Vivax wrote:
What‘s gonna happen to Uchiha Maduro in NY ? Thrown in prison for the next 3 years before being released by the next Democratic President
That or tried and found not guilty because the Trump doj is provably incompetent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
