this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
61 points (94.2% liked)

politics

18986 readers
4155 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm like 70% sure the US and the USSR mutually agreed this was a bad idea

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Oh yeah, signed a treaty. And everything.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Maybe google "Trump inf treaty".

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Just one more crazy thing he did to help Russia that no one in the general public remembers outside of news junkies. That's all part of the "flood the zone" strategy that Bannon talks about (but it predates Bannon).

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Donald Trump couldn't find Ukraine on a map, but his first act on becoming presumptive nominee in 2016 was to force the Republican convention to remove its plank supporting Ukraine.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

People who can't see this just blow mind.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Starlink stock gonna take a hit on this one

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Isn't Starlink stock.

1.) Fractional Orbital Bombardment System

2.) Orbital nuclear weapons delivery platform

3.) New orbital ASAT capability

Take your pick they all fit.

[–] TakiMinase@slrpnk.net -1 points 7 months ago

X-37 nuclear installation platform

[–] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Okay, good. So just the GOP trying to drum up a super scary distraction from their opposition to doing anything about the border or supporting America's allies. I'm sure this is just as scary as that 'East Coast destroying nuclear torpedo' of theirs.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

If anything this undercuts them opposing Ukraine aid. Russia is trying to escalate, so they clearly need to be shut down, and we conveniently have an Ally working to do that right now, an Ally that has a pending aid bill before that very chamber.

[–] lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This might be the Republican plan. Russia breaking the "no nukes in space" rule, so now it's okay to back Ukraine again. They don't lose face, satisfy the large chunk of constituents that support what Ukraine is doing, and make their military donors happy.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

I think that's way more 4d chess than they are actually capable of, but if votes shift i'll definitely give it to your take.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Why would the #GOP care what their boss is doing?

They are going on vacation.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

The number of times I've accidentally murdered my entire squad with an orbital strike in Helldivers tells me that would be a really bad idea.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] diykeyboards@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

It's such a badass thing and so few people even realize we have it or how it's (probably) used.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Why does it matter if the nuclear weapon is in space or in some secret bunker (or on a plane or submarine, for that matter). It seems like one in space would be the easiest to monitor and intercept, if necessary, and also the least likely to kill anyone if it has a rapid unscheduled kaboom.

I get why we don’t want anyone testing nukes in space but I don’t think anyone besides North Korea has tested an actual nuclear weapon since the 90’s.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

From a space delivery using a hyper sled you could be on target in 120 seconds. No time for any reaction.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

EMP taking out global communication and GPS systems. Yeah, no big deal.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It’d be a big deal if they launched nuclear weapons from any platform. I’m not saying it’s a minor issue. I’m saying I don’t get why it’s more dangerous than other mutually assured destruction scenarios.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Look at it this way. What's a bigger deal? A fox in the henhouse or a fox on the other side of the pasture in the sights of your rifle?

Hypothetically, a nuke platform in orbit could just lay waste to a massive amount of communication infrastructure. For Russia, operating in Europe, they can rely on encrypted radio comms from London to the Kremlin but the US is on the other side of the planet. US superiority is heavily reliant on things like satellite intelligence, remote guided ordinance, and a central command well back from the theatre of operations.

It would give Russia's outdated crap military a huge leg up and level the playing field somewhat.

I'm not an expert so all that is just me freestyling but how does it sound? Does it sound like a threat to US military effectiveness in Europe?

Russia still has to contend with European armies but they have nukes that they could use tactically in the region. If it's your home turf, you'll surrender before risking that.