Donald Trump and US politics

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

There is but one valid justification for going to war: another entity goes to war with you first. What's so concerning about US military interventionism is how readily the officials of our country are willing to put foreign interests under the umbrella of "us," and who those allies are.

What is your opinion on nuclear proliferation? If North Korea get his hands on ICBMs that work, the US will probably have to withdraw their protection of Japan and South Korea, then Japan and SK will have to make their own nukes if they don't want to get bullied by NK, and if things keep going in that direction how many small countries will have nukes 30 years from now? The idea of a stupid small dictator having nukes, or even worse, some fanatic religious terrorist having it (like ISIS), gives me the chills.

Not wanting to meddle with other countries conflicts is understandable, but rules change when it comes to nukes right?

I've read somewhere that scientists do believe that nuclear winter is possible, so nukes don't need to hit the US for it to be affected, if nukes go off in some small country maybe the whole world might get screwed.

So, are you against intervention even in those situations? (honestly curious here)

"

faerwin wrote:

They gave him the nobel prize of peace due to how he brought together a nation even through race divide

wut

ISIS isn't a religious fanatical group.

The troops are brainwashed with religion, but the leaders aren't. They just exploit religion to gain control/make money.

Honestly, if it's what's needed to stop the constant warmongering of the US, I'm all for it.

"

Disrupted wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

They gave him the nobel prize of peace due to how he brought together a nation even through race divide

wut

black vs white, essentially. I said I didn't agree with the prize itself.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Disrupted wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

They gave him the nobel prize of peace due to how he brought together a nation even through race divide

wut

black vs white, essentially. I said I didn't agree with the prize itself.

never happened. Yep's all bullshit

"

Disrupted wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

They gave him the nobel prize of peace due to how he brought together a nation even through race divide

wut

The Nobel Committee has had its fair share of horrible years when it comes to picking and choosing nominees, a lot of lazy years it seems - I feel this was one such year - as it seemed like a publicity stunt.

To be fair, Obama stated he was undeserving of the award and really didn't make a big deal about it from what I can remember. All the same though, considering that the Nobel Peace prize is specific to cross-nation peace achievements, it didn't seem reasonable for him to get it.

Anyone can nominate anyone for a Nobel prize.

The amount of nukes that would need to be used for a nuclear winter is pretty high, assuming I'm understanding it correctly.

It would need to send enough dust/dirt particle in the air to block a high percentage of the sun, which is no small amount. A volcano is the closest thing to an atomic bomb in that perspective and even a big volcanic eruption has little to no medium and long term effect. Even the short term effect of such an explosion is heavily limited in the amount of surface it affects. A volcanic explosion would need to be around 7 to have a lasting effect on the climate, which is the equivalent of hundreds, if not thousands of atomic bombs...


So, it's highly improbable that this would happen, mostly because no one would be standing after that amount of bombing

"

soneka101 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

There is but one valid justification for going to war: another entity goes to war with you first. What's so concerning about US military interventionism is how readily the officials of our country are willing to put foreign interests under the umbrella of "us," and who those allies are.

What is your opinion on nuclear proliferation? If North Korea get his hands on ICBMs that work, the US will probably have to withdraw their protection of Japan and South Korea, then Japan and SK will have to make their own nukes if they don't want to get bullied by NK, and if things keep going in that direction how many small countries will have nukes 30 years from now? The idea of a stupid small dictator having nukes, or even worse, some fanatic religious terrorist having it (like ISIS), gives me the chills.

Not wanting to meddle with other countries conflicts is understandable, but rules change when it comes to nukes right?

I've read somewhere that scientists do believe that nuclear winter is possible, so nukes don't need to hit the US for it to be affected, if nukes go off in some small country maybe the whole world might get screwed.

So, are you against intervention even in those situations? (honestly curious here)

A just and strong military is about deterrence and retaliation, not about the initiation of force. It is important that the North Korean leadership understand that the use of nuclear weapons against us or our protected allies will result in their utter annihilation. It is important that the North Korean people understand this as well; if the leadership attempts to keep this message from its citizens, it would behoove the US to use counter-propaganda methods to make sure American retaliatory policy is well-known such that the North Korean people and lower-level government officials could put political pressure upon their leaders to avoid nuclear war.

Interventionism is hugely risky. If we initiate the use of force, it weakens our argument and strengthens any propaganda in favor of nuclear attack — it provides a potential madman with *valid* evidence that the US is coming for them militarily and will not relent until it either achieves its interventionist goals or is repelled by force. When we intervene successfully, we give foreign nations the moral justification to oppose us with all their strength when we intervene unsuccessfully. It's​ a strategy that requires perfection in execution, and whose every success makes the next mission more difficult.

Our current foreign policy of nuclear non-proliferation is, in practice, the proactive sabotage of the technological development of any country that has not bended knee to the American-European globalist empire. This is not and cannot be a policy pursued by a nation that respects the sovereignty of others nations; it is necessarily the policy of a nation that foresees a hegemonic one-world government, with itself at a key role of leadership within it. Our non-proliferation policy implies world domination by the United States, with any rebels continuously suppressed to pre-nuclear technologies. Its inevitable conclusion will be a just rebellion against globalism; hopefully, such a war is fought more with words and within the West and less with weapons and in the East, or it will likely spell doom for all life on this planet.

The only way to forever prevent the peoples of the Levant from developing technologies equal to ours is to impose a type of Dark Ages upon them by force. If we do, what are we? If we don't, how will we convince them not to attack first?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It is important that the North Korean leadership understand that the use of nuclear weapons against us or our protected allies will result in their utter annihilation.

I'm sure they know it. But lets assume they are willing to use WMDs in a first strike. Since they know they will be counter-obliterated, regardless if they use 1 nuke or 10 nukes, it would make sense for them to go all in - do as much damage to US, Japan, SK, as possible.

The major issue here is that this decision rests on a handful of people, a bunch of rather fanatical NK leaders that have absolute power, while the population lives in an informational blackout. No matter how NK ends, peaceful or with war, the leadership knows they are fucked, that they will be either killed or imprisoned for life. Which makes them very dangerous.

I'm strictly against interventionism, when US/NATO was/is attacking imaginary threats in the middle east. But in the case of NK the threat is very real and the longer "we" wait, the better their ICBMs/WMDs will get. Sanctions obviously don't work, they've been under sanctions for decades. The regime will single-handedly kill all north Koreans and eat their corpses, before they collapse.

NK will continue developing longer range and more reliable ICBMs, miniaturizing nuclear warheads, proliferating their weapons, etc.. This is what keeps the regime alive. At some point they will become a threat to whole US, Russia, Europe. Sadly the best time to strike them was ~15 years ago, but the second best is now*.

(* if we assume that war is the most likely outcome in any case)

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Our current foreign policy of nuclear non-proliferation is, in practice, the proactive sabotage of the technological development of any country that has not bended knee to the American-European globalist empire.
...
The only way to forever prevent the peoples of the Levant from developing technologies equal to ours

This I disagree. Developing nuclear weapons has nothing to do with feeding your population. It's not that if you allow everyone to develop nukes, they will become more advanced and civilized. While the chance of a "chain-reaction" nuclear destruction of humanity would severely increase.

Nukes are good as deterrent when your country is isolated = has no big brother (eg. Russia or China) to defend it from "freedom & democracy", but it's not the only deterrent. A world where everyone has nukes will not be more safe or less violent, especially not in case of internally unstable ME countries filled with religious fanatics & sectarian competition.

The cold war was still riddled with conflicts, revolutions & invasions, despite the big players having their thumbs on the nuclear button all the time.