Trump says the U.S. will take control of Greenland 'one way or the other'
Trump says the U.S. will take control of Greenland 'one way or the other'
www.cnbc.com
Trump says the U.S. will take control of Greenland 'one way or the other'
142 comments
-
Looks like Denmark needs nukes.
-
Let's take that hot air argument off the table.
Escalating into nuclear conflict is a total loss scenario. The first one pressing a button would trigger a chain reaction that would render the planet an irradiated rock. Nobody gains anything.
Nuclear armament is the last hidding place for fragile egos and we would be very fortunate if after this insanity streak there was a complete nuclear global disarmament.
-
Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded if they still had their nukes
-
We have no way to know that.
-
Not if you choose wilful ignorance... in that case we have no way of knowing anything
-
Fine. Unless we have access to a crystal ball, I'm fairly comfortable in reiterating we can not know what would happen; a few educated guesses, certainly, but knowing, no.
Afterall, it took a lawyer, turned actor, turned politian to have Ukraine peel off from the heavy russian influence over the country which eventually led to the ongoing conflict, as Russia lost the heavy influence it had over what was essentially a puppet state, akin to Belarus.
Had Ukraine retained their nuclear armament - which, of memory serve me well, was disbanded in order to reach a peace agreement for the region, as Russia considered the presence of such weapons a threat - maybe it had become another rogue state just like Belarus is today.
Can we know? No.
-
-
-
-
Nuclear weapons are not meant for a nuclear conflict really, they're used as a deterrent, and it works. Look how the world is scared shitless of helping Ukraine directly despite Russian army not being too strong - but Russia has nukes.
Edit: Also see noone wanting a conflict with North Korea.
-
Let us wait and see for how much longer that remains. Russia is resorting to mercenaries (don't really know what else to call the north korean in the scenario). At some point, either Ukraine pushes back with enough force to end the conflict or other countries will start sending troops there, even if for nothing else besides urban security to relive more national troops to the front lines.
-
Yeah, I'm expecting the US to start sending troops at some point - but not to help Ukraine.
-
Also. Somehow, I have this feeling Europe is on the way to dust off the guns, after nearly - what? - 70 years. Hopefully, I'm wrong. I sincerely want to be.
-
I actually really hope Europe, or at least some parts of it, will have the balls to protect themselves when the shit hits the fan. The idea of capitulation in the name of peace is becoming uncomfortably popular.
-
-
Exactly.
-
But this time it will be all different. There finally will be peace for our time. Now go home and get a nice quiet sleep. /s
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nuclear armament has given world unrivalled period of peace. " chain reaction that would render the planet an irradiated rock. " Nuclear winter is a lie. Nuclear weapons are not that radioactive. We do not have that many of them. Do not worry, your beloved mankind will survive to do another 100,000 years of genocide, rape, torture, murder, destruction, oppression and all the other things our sacred texts say are fun and good.
-
That was depressing to read.
Humankind, please. Let's try to include everyone, please. And yes, I do hope our species will thrive into a future I'm too small to even imagine.
Second, be free to believe in whatever you may want but keep it to yourself. People covet power. Weaponizing belief is easy, as it preys on the weak and abandoned. Zealots are to fear, not belief. It's about greed.
Third, let's put those fabled deterrents back into the box. Peace through fear is not peace. It's a hostage situation.
-
Its more like "peace through outcome too stupid and worthless to pursue" than "peace through fear." But i recognize this is mostly down to opinion and i respect your optimism and pacifism and wish everyone was like that. Then our biggest problems would be kernel level anti cheat.
-
-
-
Considering trump, are we absolutely sure he doesn’t suddenly decide to throw a nuke at somebody who opposes him ?
Putin is an ass, but I’m also fairly certain he won’t drop nukes on anybody unless somebody is about to invade the Kremlin. Trump however…
-
Are we giving him more credit than the figure is worth? As others have already stated, that is a very last resort scenario. I don't want to imagine the voices from seasoned military personell telling why it should not be done. I even risk someone would shoot the guy.
-
-
would trigger a chain reaction that would render the planet an irradiated rock
That's the worst case scenario. There's plenty alternate scenarios.
But it's besides the point anyway. There's a lot that comes before that. The point is it's a deterrent.
-
-
142 comments