this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
106 points (97.3% liked)

World News

33249 readers
680 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

When orange man starts talking about denuclearization agreements

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Since this actually sounds like a good decision... Over/under on Trump promising to double the amount of nukes and turn China into a nuclear wasteland unless they do something for him, by the end of next week?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I don’t know gambling metrics and terminology, so I’ll just answer “yes.”

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So what's gonna happen when a finger on the monkey's paw curls for this?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

As much as I hate it, the doctrine of mutual destruction seems to work. The removal of it might lead to immediate hot world war

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Everyone's perspective is the same on Lemmy it seems or close and its getting old so much snide comments and negativity. We all should consider this a win regardless of how goofy any side is, its the thought that this approach is reaching the decision makers. Planting the seed.

I think this is likely one of the smartest things Trump has ever persued if it comes to fruition even partially a mere slither. The modern battlefield is fought with technology. Using drones/robots and infosec psyop and the list goes on and on.

Conventional war has more risk than worth now days leaves nothing but a pile of rocks nothing to claim but dirt.

While I don't think anyone will give them up soon sure even bad actors will hodl old means eventually the value prop and cost to maintain will sputter out, we all should know we have been heading that direction for a very long time. Progress no matter how small is a step in the right direction.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

You can trust Lemmy for serious and well informed political analysis!

But seriously though,I agree with you. Lemmy doesn't seem to have heard of SALT treaties and act as though there is no precedence. While not perfect, it is better than nothing.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

USA have absolutely abysmal records of upholding nuclear disarmament so IF it is even a serious proposition, the reason for it it's the quickly incoming time when Minutemen missiles will have to be decomissioned while its replacement is so much overbudget and overtime that it seriously risk scrapping of entire project. Meaning the perspective USA will lose main part of its strategic armament is real.

Also you never, ever trust USA on any nuclear deals.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Also let's not forget that the US is literally hiring Elon Musk to help then "win" the nuclear war, their words not mine.

How anyone can think their denuclearization proposal is in good faith is beyond me.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

I refuse to believe trump will do anything decent like this

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Looking at these comments: so now liberals love nuclear weapons?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Americans are ruled by a politics of opposition. Anything Trump does, the opposite must be good. Anything Biden does, the opposite must be good. Nobody thinks about anything from scratch.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (16 children)

Denuclearization is a good thing.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yes it's a good thing, but the US is utterly devoid of honour and trustworthiness and there's no chance they will actually follow through with denuclearizing their own arsenal, so this proposal is meaningless and no country should take it seriously.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

True. The US is the only country that ever used them and the only country where politicians regularly threaten to use them. Somehow though they get to act as if they are the only ones that can be trusted with them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It is nominally a good thing. In the real world, however, I'd be working as hard as possible to ensure I had a nuclear program to discourage specifically Donald, Putin, and Elon

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Those three aren't as bad as Netanyahu and he too has nuclear weapons.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I was gonna make a joke about this being the thing that finally makes Democrats fight Trump... But then I saw all the pro-nuke .world comments. We're so cooked

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'll believe it when I see it. Military spending increased in his first term and talk is cheap.

If he actually followed through on cutting the military budget by half, it'd be an incredible move and I'd start considering him the lesser evil. But it's all for show, it's triangulation to appeal to certain groups. End of the day, he's a right winger and right wingers won't cut the military.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a rush toward re-nuclearization after these last couple years.

What are the odds Ukraine would be invaded by Russia if they had nukes?

Would Trump be joking about making Canada a 51st state if they had nukes?

Trump and the rest of the American government is showing NATO and every other country that we're one election away from abandoning our promises to our allies. Nobody can be trusted.

Any country would be a fool to consider giving up their nukes after seeing the shitshow.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Denuclearizing worked out so well for Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Nukes wouldn't have saved them from being couped

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Having less nukes is not the same as disarmament it's not even comparable. They dropped two nukes and did that much destruction in Japan, 2, and those were 1940s nukes, even with this change the US would still have thousands of nukes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-nuclear-weapons-exist-and-who-has-them/

the United States admits to having 5,550

Ukraine went to 0 nukes, the US has 5000+ nukes, how would that even be comparable if the US let's say went down to 1000 nukes. That's still 1000 nukes more than 0.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What he actually wants is denuclearization for only China and Russia so the US can use its unchecked nuclear force to threaten the world.

[–] avidamoeba 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

“We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully much more productive,” Trump said.

🫨

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›