[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Tor Only

Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

 No.476326[Last 50 Posts]

The nuclear threat is back. But we don't see any nuclear panic like in the 1980s. Why is that? Why does nobody care?

I am not some prepper retard but even I am getting nervous.

Just look at this shit
A time of unprecedented danger: It is 90 seconds to midnight
>This year, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward, largely (though not exclusively) because of the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine. The Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight—the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.
>As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned in August, the world has entered “a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War.”

and also this
US Nuclear Test Raises Concerns of New Arms Race With Russia


>The US conducted a high-explosive experiment at a nuclear test site in Nevada just hours after Russia revoked a ban on atomic-weapons testing, prompting concerns of a new arms race between the world’s top nuclear powers.

So, are you going to PROTECT AND SURVIVE, anon? Or are you just going to give up everything and die?


File: 1698134978386.webm ( 2.13 MB , 854x480 , Daniel Ellsberg on ICBMs.webm )

>Russia revoked a ban on atomic-weapons testing
Typical anti-Russia propaganda. For two decades now the US has done everything it could to destroy and sabotage existing arms control treaties. The ball is squarely in the court of the bloodthirsty, psychotic neocons running Washington right now who are so fanatically devoted to the project of global domination that they'll push their brand of anti-diplomacy all the way to the brink of nuclear armageddon. If the world is to be saved we need to get Americans out in the streets to make these fuckers afraid of the populace again. Scott Ritter was trying to inspire something like this earlier this year. How can we motivate Americans to fight for the future of civilization?


I don't have any respect for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists these days. At some point it was taken over by think-tank saber rattlers and they've been peddling Russophobic and Sinophobic bullshit since at least 2016 that directly contradicts their mission of stopping nuclear exchanges.


And seriously what the fuck does bullshit like this have to do with nuclear weapons?


Oy vey mate. Do you have a license or certification? Otherwise, you are spreading false and misleading science denialism


<Russia revoked a ban on atomic-weapons testing
>Typical anti-Russia propaganda.

but they did do that. it's just a statement of a fact

The Duma withdrew ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
>State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin said that the bill was signed by 438 deputies. He noted that such a large consolidation does not happen often, and said that such a unanimous vote is a response to US and its attitude towards its responsibilities to maintain global security.


>lying by omission is actually just le "statement of fact" bro xDDDD
liberal retard


File: 1698162069335.jpg ( 42.71 KB , 505x437 , nuke clown.jpg )

>The nuclear threat is back.
It never went away, the nukes always sat their in the silos, submarines and so on, ready to end the world.

>But we don't see any nuclear panic like in the 1980s.

This is almost like you are complaining about there not being enough politics of fear. It's pointless to cower under a table, it's a weapon that rips apart atoms.
>I am not some prepper retard but even I am getting nervous.
>So, are you going to PROTECT AND SURVIVE, anon? Or are you just going to give up everything and die?
More fear signals, fuck off with that.
We want to see righteous anger at reckless leaders, not fear.
The nuclear threat will go away, when people in power are terrified of the people's wrath.

>Why is that? Why does nobody care?

I wouldn't say nobody cares, but some people do not believe the physical world is real anymore, so that might have something to do with it.

>Russians axed a nuclear arm controle treaty.

The US was the one that started dismantling detente era de-denuclearization treaties, the Russians responded with tit for tat game-theory logic. I think detente unofficially ended in 2007 when the US broke parts of the ABM treaties, and it officially ended in 2018 when the US pulled out of the INF treaties.

>it's just a statement of a fact
Facts don't exist in a vacuum, you are lying by omitting context. The US was the one that started this.


Anyway if you want to understand where this is heading read the military doctrinal stuff. They've been complaining that high yield nukes are "not usable enough". They want to use small yield nukes. I guess the train is heading towards one of those going off, murdering a huge amount of people. Then everybody takes note and we can ban nuclear weapons as well as high yield chemical bombs.

At the moment Russia and China have the superior nuke delivery systems, that reduces US belligerency quite a lot. Russia and China sort off have no-first-strike policies. So the US, China and Russia are not very likely to use nukes.

India-Pakistan tensions and of course unhinged Zionists at the helm of Israel are the source of nuclear concern.


>But we don't see any nuclear panic like in the 1980s
because americans werent dead inside at that point and actually spirited and nothing like the sheeple of today
>So, are you going to PROTECT AND SURVIVE, anon? Or are you just going to give up everything and die?
going to try to romeo some senators daughter or whatever, they always have daddy issues and theyre out there, thank allah
fuck off faggot there is always something cooking


Lurk moar, newfag


File: 1698186677370.jpg ( 63.94 KB , 850x400 , 1643192786522.jpg )

sorry son been lurking in your moms puss puss


>muh lying by omission
Did I say Russia is guilty in any of this? No.

I've literally just posted a headline of a BoomerBerg article saying that US did a nuclear test right after Russia revoked their sign of The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Without ANY comment. Just to show how we are getting 60 years back.

US testing nukes simply because Russia revoked some sign actually makes them look bad. This is literally a provocation. And that's how I understood that. I didn't know I have to explain something so obvious.

But apparently to easily butthurt russiaboos on this site, one has to set up historical context all the way back to Democritus or they get a heart attack


File: 1698281845964.jpg ( 103.19 KB , 372x372 , lenin grin tea.jpg )



File: 1698399474260.jpg ( 23.63 KB , 300x326 , cyclone2.jpg )

>The nuclear threat is back.

No it's not, and I unironically wish that it was. Being in the immediate vicinity of a nuclear blast would be a better way to go than how I'll probably die.

The thing about fears of nuclear armageddon is that our leaders are pussies. Every fucking one of them, including Vladimir "fuck it let's be legends" Putin. They value their lives, they value the material gain which comes with their positions, they love all the control they have over stuff… and they know that if they launched a single nuke, that would be over. In fact, if the US sent Ukraine a single nuclear warhead rather than cluster bombs, there would be peace in Ukraine over night - I know that's not what some folks want to hear, but it would save thousands of lives. The distribution of all the former USSR's stockpile to the Russian Federation was predicated on the idea that Russia would behave more responsibly than its little despotic offshoots, a presumption which has been consistently challenged without any nuclear strikes occurring. The US wouldn't even risk the global social repercussions of doing such a thing, let alone the very slim chance that it would result in some sort of military attack on the American leadership. While I don't trust MAD entirely, it's true that there would be a lot less war if all of these countries had nukes - instead, we see countries with nukes constantly invading countries without nukes.

That said, even with total nuclear proliferation, I think we might eventually see a situation where countries just agree to not use their stockpiles and just have wars anyway. Even so, there would be a period of reduced war and forced diplomacy before things heated up again. NK was right to get nukes; Iran should get nukes, and Palestine having nukes would be a miracle of sorts. As a person who cannot possibly justify a fear of death (my life is shit and I want to die), I can see how much benefit a real threat of nuclear destruction would have, and I can just as well see that it is a pipedream which we will never achieve.


File: 1698438560289.jpg ( 45.3 KB , 788x443 , t2-judgementday-nukescene.jpg )

I can see your point that nuclear proliferation would also proliferate deterrence, and perhaps clamp down some military conflict.

But you are being reckless. Giving the Ukro-regime nukes, is madness. The unhinged fascist elements already tried to cause a nuclear disaster by shelling the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station. If you give these people nukes, they'll use them. The other problem is that the Russians can detect nuclear war-heads based on their radioactive signature. They will be able to interdict your attempt of delivering a nuke to Ukraine. Your nuke delivery would get destructively disassembled spewing it's toxic innards all over the place.

If you want to balance out Isreal's nukes (they call "samson option") you probably should allow Iran to develop nukes. Stationing nukes in Palestinian territory does nothing for deterrence, it's too close either side can't nuke the other without also nuking it-self. Also Palestine currently does not have the technical base to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

The nuclear threat posture of Russia is less aggressive than that of the US, and i somehow doubt that nuclear deterrence really wears off. There are no indications of a dark-Kautsky type ultra-imperialism where capitalist ruling classes all work together to organize war-choreographies to kill off parts of their populations. The Neocons in Washington see Russia as a rival they want knocked off the Bord, they don't want coexistence with Moscow and work together with Putin, they want to rule the world by them self.

We do have to dismantle nuclear weapons for statistical reasons. If we keep these systems around for long enough eventually a malfunction will set off a nuclear war.


File: 1698439929978-0.jpg ( 23.03 KB , 160x240 , The Doomsday Machine.jpg )

File: 1698439929978-1.jpg ( 19.87 KB , 500x375 , ripper3.jpg )

Shut up and read this book already. It's been simple dumb luck that humanity even made it to the 21st century. The threat of nuclear catastrophe doesn't come simply from some lunatic dictator finally pressing the big red button. It comes from massive hierarchical, semi-autonomous structures involved in the deployment of nuclear weapons where individuals across the chain of command have the ability to accidentally or intentionally trigger a largely automated nuclear exchange. In fact in order for the supposed stabilizing effect of adversaries arming with nukes to be realized, these automated structures have to exist for the threat of mutual annihilation to be credible.


If Russia would just intercept any nuclear weapons, then you've got nothing to worry about from evil UKROPs. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Gimme more information about it. I usually only read books in… literal book form, away from the screen, and I'm broke now so that's probably not gonna happen.


The nuclear threat was never real. They only get launched as a last resort if the masses call the bluff and decide they're ready to go out, because continuing to live under this is worse than anything else. Go back to Public Opinion (1922) and every ruling idea is premised on the idea that the people can be cowed into submission by unlimited fear. Every use of nuclear weapons and every threat made is directed towards the people, rather than a rival state. They are the last resort of a state facing total collapse, and the narrative always calls for stoking as much fear as possible, even if the state actor holding nukes doesn't actually threaten the target population. Israel uses its nukes as a tool not to threaten the Arabs, but to threaten American allies with a general nuclear war if they don't suck Zionist cock. The Arabs have already made it clear they will take the Samson option, because they're likely to survive. They're so confident that they don't even need nukes of their own, nor would they use them as terror weapons since that is not part of their agenda.

So far as nukes have a use, they are a tactical weapon to use against massed formations. One nuke against a staged army = dead army unless it is dispersed wide enough, which limits how much force it can project at a locale. As a terror weapon, the main use of nukes is to cow the normally passive public into submission, so they accept having their lives taken from them piece by piece. It's part of the apparatus which holds a knife at the throat of every subject from cradle to grave, telling them that this is the only possible world. Basically, the threat of nuclear war is not a real threat that would be issued by one state to another. It is only a threat of the empire to the people, and while we should believe that the empire is willing to act on that threat like any other threat it issues, we shouldn't play by their expectations. Most people don't, and a lot of people have their "get the fuck out of the blast zone" plans. The "prepper" fucktardation is programming to get the people to act like headless chickens when war comes about, ratcheting up the paranoia to herd them to believe anything.

If you are going to face the ruling elites' final option with nukes, I think you can see that knowing who you can trust is most important. The rulers will sit in bunkers and secure locations, along with those they plan to keep. At its heart, nuclear war is a threat of eugenicists, because it establishes a clear hierarchy of who is worth keeping - the precursor to lifeboat ethics and Survivor shitfests. Nuclear war against states with deep tunnel networks is surprisingly ineffective. There are stories that nukes were used in Iraq in 2003, and I don't know what to make of them, but Iraq is still here. They were fucked with or without nukes. A state using nuke war in a limited theater - let's say Israel uses the Samson Option - is unlikely to lead to further nukes. Any delivery system Israel uses against a neutral with missile interception capabilities is likely shot down, and the only gain of the Zionists would be pure spite. China, Russia, Europe, would all survive a "random" nuke from Shitrael, and that would probably be enough to call for Anuddah Shoah right then and there for putting the world through that. It's one reason Shitrael won't actually do it. What is the point of nuking Arab or Iranian cities, except to kill people for the lulz? They're going to keep coming for you, and the outcome of a limited such war will be that no one will ever allow a Zionist anywhere near power again. It would be a gigantic display of impotence. I doubt Israel will use its nukes unless doomsday was prepared. A nuclear attack against Iran is something they would have prepared for, and they showed an ability to summon human wave attacks. Nothing would light a fire under their ass like fighting the Great Satan doing such a, well, Satanic and stupid thing.

So unless they're ready to do the full democide now, I'm not expecting a nuke "war" now - and when it happens, it will be used to democide population centers, and would be preceded by making sure eugenics is secured and the residuum are "bunched" and can't escape. Part of why they're so big on "15 minute cities" and Agenda 2020/2030 shit to force plebs into cities as prisons. Too many people would not comply with that without preliminary efforts to force people off their land, and the US would face extreme difficulty turning the entire hinterland into Gaza, even with all of the arms it has stockpiled to do exactly that.


I don't see them doing full democide, because their present depopulation measures are already working very well for targeting the selected enemies and securing those they want to keep (fellow Satanics). They'd only fire the nukes if there was no other way to contain the rage of the people over what was done to them, and there was a sustained offensive against eugenics and open executions of those who did this to us. Such a rebellion is nowhere near forming - the most "revolutionary" faction are the Nazis who intend to advance depopulation once their place on the lifeboat is secured. What's really happening is a plan war between two eugenist factions, who will immediately turn to liquidate the residuum and "neutrals" who are claimed to be the real base of the enemy. The Right and the "Left" already have their assigned targets for liquidation, who they will be sent against in a general global civil war like the one they appear to be making. They will studiously avoid each other or any worthwhile center of power. It's the only way they can accelerate depopulation past what they have done, but there is potential for the world to refuse to play along with this.

There is no possibility of a peaceful end to eugenics. Not after this. The aim of the eugenists will be to use terror weapons to cow the civilized peoples to submit to the agenda, and the threat of stoking an unlimited global civil war to get their way. Anyone who wanted to work against this has been sidelined or made irrelevant, or is of the depoliticized classes and has no agency in this matter.


The only peaceful end to eugenics is that it is either utterly victorious and becomes Absolute (all life dies screaming forever), or those behind the throne who really call the shots get everything they want and start the next thing, throwing away the eugenists in favor of the scientific despotism they've really wanted as the result of all of this.


>If Russia would just intercept any nuclear weapons, then you've got nothing to worry about from evil UKROPs
Are you daft ?
If a nuclear-bomb transport gets blown up, that would cause radioactive fallout. Such a happening would also cause lots of escalation on a political level and inevitably more attempts at nuclear weapons proliferation.

If the US tried to give nukes to Ukraine, the Russians would try to give nukes to countries that are hostile to the US. The US would also try to blow up those nuke-transports. The overall result of this struggle would have a similar effect than blowing up lots of dirty bombs. And cause the most retarded time line.


File: 1698517092005.png ( 258.07 KB , 512x497 , yourmeds.png )



You're s Satanic faggot.


<The US is building a new nuclear gravity bomb - with 24-times more power

>The US plans on building a new nuclear bomb 24 times more powerful than one dropped on Japan during World War II.

>The Department of Defense will seek congressional approval and funding to pursue the latest version of the B61-13 nuclear gravity bomb.

>The weapon has a maximum yield of 360 kilotons, compared to the 15-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, which killed an estimated 140,000 people.


>with 24-times more power
<measured in kilotons not megatons
Yeah the title is a bit sensationalist, this is not a super-powerful bomb.

The most powerful nuclear device ever tested was the Tsar Bomba, it's yield was a little over 50 megatons (but can be configured to be over 100 megatons), which was estimated to be about 3800 times the strength of the US bomb dropped on Hiroshima during WW2.

Check this out, to put this into perspective relative to other nuclear devices

So the US is building a new medium yield nuclear weapon. This could just be a replacement for older tech that is being phased out. Political motivations are also possible. The US kinda has been eroding the nuclear-weapons-control scheme from the detente era, and the intention is a new nuclear arms race. But in this case i would still consider the tech-upgrade explanation more likely still.

Overall you're not wrong. Nuclear weapons were on a declining trend during the detente era, and now their on the rise again. And this is worrying.

The big nuclear powers like the US and Russia are however are of lesser concern. At present the most dangerous potential for nuclear weapons use is Israel dropping a nuke on Iran. It's also very likely that with Iran feeling threatened they would seek to create it's own nuclear deterrence capacity, and given the current state of geo-political tensions they will be able to get it. Increasing nuclear proliferation.


File: 1699331288010-0.jpg ( 69.96 KB , 666x897 , nuclear zionazi.jpg )

File: 1699331288010-1.jpg ( 111.19 KB , 1222x778 , lets take the nukes off th….jpg )

Far-right minister: Nuking Gaza is an option, population should go to Ireland or deserts


<A minister from the extremist Otzma Yehudit party says one of Israel’s options in the war in Gaza is to drop a nuclear bomb on the Strip.

Woop there it is.


Wasn't Israel relying on the ambiguity of do-they-or-don't-they-have-nukes for a long time? When did that change?


>Wasn't Israel relying on the ambiguity
There never was any ambiguity, the fact that Israel didn't admit to having nukes is probably not that relevant strategically, outside of preventing Israeli politicians from doing what this moronic nuclear Zionazi just did. You can't really hide nukes they have a detectable signature, And pretty much every power has been able to detect those since the 80s, unless they are underground or in submersed submarines. Producing nukes is a huge undertaking, that can't be kept secret either, because regular spies could figure this out also.

At the present technology level of commercial available tech-commodities. Technically inclined and physics literate people might be able to diy a detector, i have seen some hobbyists that build vapor chambers that are sensitive enough to detect a single high energy particle, which is much harder.

What also has to be said, this guy just got suspended, he didn't get sacked. Keep in mind that nuking GAZA = nuking Israel. Gaza is too close, even a small low yield nuke would have massive blowback effects on Israel. With tens of thousands dead and hundreds of thousand wounded Israelis. This isn't just genocidal evil, it's also intense stupidity, of destroying Israel to own the Palestinians.

If we had a sane international environment, you'd see a ground swell of demands calling for a nuclear arms control regime being imposed on Israel. All your official government people have to toe the line on nuclear doctrine, if you can't insure that, nobody can trust you with nukes. Netanyahu didn't immediately fire this moron because of internal political reasons, but internationally that projects the image of a unhinged madman. This incident probably has granted Iran sufficient political cover to builds it own nukes, because they can point that the crazy neighbor.


It's always the irish


>Are you daft ?
>If a nuclear-bomb transport gets blown up, that would cause radioactive fallout.

Then blowing it up seems like a bad idea.

>Such a happening would also cause lots of escalation on a political level and inevitably more attempts at nuclear weapons proliferation.

Everyone should have nukes!

>If the US tried to give nukes to Ukraine, the Russians would try to give nukes to countries that are hostile to the US.


>The US would also try to blow up those nuke-transports. The overall result of this struggle would have a similar effect than blowing up lots of dirty bombs. And cause the most retarded time line.

This is provided that every nuclear transport operation is successfully detected and eliminated… I'm kinda skeptical that it would go down that way.


>Then blowing it up seems like a bad idea.
Yeah but to the Russians letting the US have a critical nuclear advantage is an impossible idea, the likelyhood that they would interdict a nuclear transport is 100%.

>Everyone should have nukes!

Maybe from a political perspective of leveling the playing field, but that is not the only consideration. Nukes can be set off by system failure, human error or human malice. More nukes and more players that have them means the probabilities stack against species survival.

<give nukes to countries that are hostile to the US.

You're not looking at the practical problems, many countries lack the technical expertise to maintain nukes, and there are worries about dangerous shit getting sold on the blackmarket.

>This is provided that every nuclear transport operation is successfully detected and eliminated… I'm kinda skeptical that it would go down that way.

I'm pretty sure that avoiding detection is not possible. Unless you build secret tunnels connected to secret under-water submarine ports, this is a theoretical James Bond tier scheme that probably doesn't work in the real world. It might be possible to use supersonic bombers to transport nukes and avoid interdiction by outrunning it, at least in some geographic locations. But that still doesn't solve the problem, that once you have delivered the nuke, it will be on the ground where it'll be a target until it's mounted to a delivery system that creates deterrence.


Amid Israeli genocide in Gaza, Washington threatens Iran with nuclear war

>After millions worldwide protested against Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza this weekend, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Baghdad Sunday. In the Iraqi capital, he denounced pro-Iranian militias that have been active in Iraq since Washington illegally invaded the country, toppled its government and occupied it from 2003 to 2011.

>Blinken accused these militias of firing on US military bases in Iraq and Syria after the Gaza war began. He said, “(T)o anyone who might seek to take advantage of the conflict in Gaza to threaten our personnel here or anywhere else in the region: Don’t do it. … (T)he threats coming from the militia that are aligned with Iran are totally unacceptable, and we will take every necessary step to protect our people. We’re not looking for conflict with Iran—we’ve made that very clear—but we’ll do what’s necessary to protect our personnel…”

>US threats to Iran emerged clearly this week, with the unusual public announcement of the sending of a US nuclear missile submarine to the Central Command, which oversees the Middle East. Such a ship can carry either 154 nuclear-tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles or 20 nuclear ballistic missiles. This gives it a total destructive power of either 23 or 28 million tons of TNT—about 1,900 or 2,300 times the power of the atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.

The fucking Threads movie also starts with a conflict in Iran, lol. So, uhh, idk, get yourselves some popcorn???


The Russians are probably still mad because their Sub in Sevastapol got shot up. If a regional war breaks out they might knock out the missile boat and let Iran take the credit.

The US probably let the sub surface to show muscle and intimate IRAN, but that might have been enough to reduce statistical uncertainty to enable the Russians to track it, at least for a while.


Nuclear War 'Doomsday' Clock Has Changed, Russian Physicist Says

>Moscow-trained physicist Pavel Podvig, who in 1995 headed the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces Research Project, wrote Thursday for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that the symbolic clock that measures cataclysmic fears and cautions of worldwide demise should be dialed down to reflect the strong global response to Russian rhetoric.

>"From the very first day of the war, Russia made no secret of counting on its nuclear weapons to ensure that nobody would come to Ukraine's rescue," Podvig wrote. "Western countries have offered massive help to Ukraine anyway, making the prospect of a direct confrontation with Russia more real than it has been for decades. The Clock had to reflect this development."

>But he now suggests, over 20 months into the Russia-Ukraine conflict, that the clock should again be moved back. He cites the strong response in opposition, not only by national bureaucrats but also by the general public.

>"To ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again, world leaders and the public should first recognize the role of the consolidated, universal opposition to nuclear threats, acknowledge this opposition, and make sure it endures," he said.

>"The Doomsday Clock is well positioned to do so. By moving its hands backward the next time it is set, even if a little, this message can be sent clearly and forcefully."


Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense given that the Middle East is hanging on the precipice of WW3. But then the Bulletin has been invaded by Russophobes and Sinophobes since Trump.


Russia says it test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile from a new nuclear submarine

>MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian military on Sunday reported a successful test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile designed to carry nuclear warheads from a new nuclear submarine.

>The Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement that the Emperor Alexander III strategic missile cruiser fired the Bulava missile from an underwater position in Russia’s northern White Sea, and hit a target in the far-eastern region of Kamchatka. It wasn’t immediately clear from the statement when the test launch occurred.

>The Emperor Alexander III is one of the new Borei-class nuclear submarines that carry 16 Bulava missiles each and are intended to serve as the core naval component of the nation’s nuclear forces in the coming decades. According to the Defense Ministry, launching a ballistic missile is the final test for the vessel, after which a decision should be made on its induction into the fleet.

>The Russian navy currently has three Borei-class submarines in service, one more is finishing tests and three others are under construction, the Defense Ministry said.


>Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense given that the Middle East is hanging on the precipice of WW3.
That is correct.
>But then the Bulletin has been invaded by Russophobes and Sinophobes
They might just be playing politics and not mean it, but on the other hand you could be right about that.

Anyway the imperial logic is that peace, is the result of all countries submitting to imperial rule, and any country that resists imperial rule is the cause of the chaos and conflict. But in reality imperial rule tends to create peace for the imperial center and perpetual conflict all around it.

Real peace only comes about when international politics meet at eye level, that's what happened in the detente era.

One consideration that ought not be ignored is that the middle east crisis is over-extending the US Empire, which is lowering the potential for a SINO-US war. The US empire attempted a "pivot to Asia" (of it's imperial focus) then the Ukraine war interrupted that. 2 years later they once again try to extricate them selves from Ukraine to "pivot to Asia" and then the Middle east crisis happened. All those "interruptions" are basically consequence of unresolved contradictions of the imperial system bubbling back up.


oh, hey, look, the nukes are in the news again

Scientific American: The U.S.’s Plans to Modernize Nuclear Weapons Are Dangerous and Unnecessary

>The U.S. is planning to modernize its unwanted, unneeded and unsafe nuclear triad of land-, sea- and air-based weapons. Perfectly poised to refight the cold war, these overhauled bombs will waste $1.5 trillion and threaten life on Earth for the century to come.

>At the center of the government's proposal is a $100-billion bid to fill 450 nuclear silos in five inland states with hundreds of new nuclear missiles set to launch on hair triggers. Built before submarine-launched missiles became large, accurate and untraceable, these relics are now justified as a “nuclear sponge” to absorb a Russian attack on the U.S. Why plant a $100-billion nuclear “kick me” sign on the country's breadbasket?


I thought land based nuke silos were being phased out. They might not even work as a "nuke sponge" anymore, because The Russians and others have "kinetic mass impact warheads" that can destroy a nuclear silo just by slamming something heavy into it at great speed. That's a cheaper option because there are no nukes in the impactors, just something heavy, presumably a lump of metal or something. A costly nuke silo for a cheap kinetic impactor, seems like a bad trade.


burgers will do anything to not have to invest in healthcare or education


>anything to not have to invest in healthcare
The US is a militarized society, maybe you have to cater to that. You could try to do public health care, by making it a military program. And call it something like Maintaining combat readiness.

And instead of giving people medical treatments to cure ailments, you call it keeping bodies ready for a fight. Instead of doing medical tests, you do battle capacity evaluations

You really have to commit to the bit and create very detailed lore, and rename every medical terminology to sound like military sledgehammer talk. Train doctors and nurses to sound like a rude training drillmaster. When you set up facilities those have to look like a military base-camp with lots of camouflage fabric. Don't forget to invent new titles that sound very militaristic.

You have to invent a political bit as well. Tell people they aren't getting health care, instead they are performing some form of duty. You accuse everybody who opposes your program to be a traitor and so on.

Technically this would not be a lie, because healthier people actually make better soldiers too.


good I hope they drop those atoms on jerusalem, mecca, vatican, and salt lake city.


File: 1702111734761.webm ( 35.86 MB , 288x512 , will_be_invaded_tiktok.webm )

What do you think /leftypol/, what would make the world invade America? Is this guy right?


File: 1702152114592.jpg ( 23.57 KB , 533x400 , sat ion.jpg )

>What do you think
A lot of what he says is correct.
Zionism-land looks like they are uniting the entire middle east against them with their unwillingness to compromise even a little on their insane barbarism, and that will probably wreck them.

Tho nothing is going to happen in Switzerland, idk what he's alluding to, its damn near impossible to invade that country, because they have garrisoned mountain ranges, and they have been hardening that shit for over a century. A big part of the population in that country is well armed and most importantly also well trained. Ground invasions obviously would not survive passing through narrow mountain roads when pop-up bunkers get the high ground. But also aircraft trying to fly over these mountains would have difficulty surviving the hidden AA systems. I think you need satellite based ion-canons to crack these defenses, because that's the only weapon that could reliably attack inside the brief windows of effective engagement.

About the US getting invaded, landing an invasion force on American beaches is impossible. But the US is somewhat vulnerable to missile strikes. So it's rather likely that if the US attacks other countries that those will begin attacking US military logistics chains all the way back to US soil. At the moment this ability is not widespread. But sophisticated missile tech is proliferating: Iran recently has managed to make supersonic cruise missiles for example.

If the US tried to supply a Taiwan proxy war in a similar way as the Ukraine proxy war was conducted, you can expect the Chinese to begin whacking US military production and logistic facilities with their global-reach hyper-sonic missiles. The US ruling class also has segregated itself into gated communities, which would make it tempting for the Chinese to target those parts of the US ruling class that is particularly hostile to China, while trying to bribe all the factions that are the least hostile to China at the same time. US military production and civilian production is largely separate as well. So it somewhat possible to attack the pillars of US empire without touching the US as a country. The average American citizen probably would not notice negative effects in their lives aside from the deafening media propaganda onslaught and political tsunami.

The US imperial bourgeoisie is doing evil shit like targeting entire populations, trying to make people suffer as a means to affect regime change. But generally, US citizens are not getting blamed for that, so retaliation is not going to be directed against the American public as a hole, but rather specifically the brain-trust that came up with the idea, the henchmen that put it into praxis and the capital interest that lobbied for it.

So when the guy in the video says the world will invade the US, that's an over-statement, there might be pecking at US imperial infrastructure.

The logic behind his argument is: The US can be an evil empire, because it feels that nobody can touch it. So it's a reasonable assumption that the counter-force pushing against US empire will seek to undo that sense of untouchability as a means to temper US conduct in the international arena.


Good take


No it's not. Kim bark but he know perfectly what will happen if he bite and Vlad try to blackmail the west into not giving weapons to Ukraine, with limited results.

It is not imaginable that the nukes start flying.

>Seconds to midnight

The impending sense of imminent doom is normal. Everyone felt it at every time of history. Look at the history of this old clock and you will understand.

You should worry about India and Pakistan, two nuclear power who are theoretically speaking at war and the involvement of China who claim a bit of both countries for no reason. Indian and Chinese soldiers have fought in 2018 but both side insisted on only using medieval and energy weapons.

If the nukes start flying, it will start there.


Don't ask about the Samson option.
If Israel loose a war against the Arab countries, they will nuke Europe and possibly the USA because they will blame us for not supporting them enough.


>Don't ask about the Samson option.
Sorry but there is no strategic ambiguity when you got lunatic ministers proposing to nuke them selves to spite the Palestinians.
>If Israel loose a war against the Arab countries, they will nuke Europe and possibly the USA because they will blame us for not supporting them enough.
You're telling me that the French and the Americans gave Israel nukes without a mechanism that prevents these nukes from being used against themselves ?


He thinks technology lockouts are like magic and not so easy to circumvent that Chinese wageslaves haven't been doing it this whole time. Even better, you think that you can make reality into a video game where you can give the US nuke immunity and the other players are NPCs who will not figure out that status.


>words, words, words
<words, words, words, words, WORDS!!
>Pics, WEBM's, and more words
Nothing ever happens. It's all so pointless and tiresome. I don't give a fuck anymore.


>technology lockouts are
>easy to circumvent
Yes but what are the chances that the IDF military bras signs off on a project for modding their nukes and be held responsible in case something goes wrong.

>you think that you can make reality into a video game where you can give the US nuke immunity

No that's not fair, the US wouldn't gain "nuke immunity" in the event Israel was rendered unable to nuke the US. There still would be all the other nuclear powers with an ability to nuke the US. It's also technically wrong, if you tried to shoot me and your gun jammed shut, that would not make me immune to bullets. Even if every gun were to seize functioning that still would not make me immune to bullets.

>Nothing ever happens.
Ukraine and Gaza blew up, Africa had a bunch of coups, but i guess that doesn't count because we didn't have nuclear Armageddon.


I don't know how this is a question for you. If you have a machine in your possession, nothing stops someone from disassembling it to remove any lockout, if they have a mind to look for such things, or develop countermeasures.

All of that stuff about surveillance tech being Big Brother? Easily circumvented, if there is a will to do so. It's not the machine itself that has this power. It's the NSA and its preponderance of information processing, and all intelligence agencies are capable of human intelligence to line up everything the NSA gathers with something meaningful. The real heart of intelligence work isn't the magic of information or symbols, but the state school, university, and its inroads into the minds of everyone, the mythology of "smart" and so on. The technology itself is something that can be reverse-engineered, or fed garbage to throw off "the algorithm". The real reason we're all slaves is because we've been raised cradle to grave to believe that these institutions have a right to tell us what we are, and that we're too stupid to rule ourselves. The production of computing technology and its distribution is a double edged sword for social control, and it can only work in ways appropriate for how it mediates information. Every technology can only allow communication in certain ways. We can't send pictures through a speaker, or text by barking like animals.

So Israel, being smart, would be able to make use of any technology given to them. A sovereign state with its own intelligence agency, one of the more effective in the world, could easily circumvent the Big Brother code and backdoors. So could China, Russia, etc. Smart men who make this their job certainly aren't as stupid as your theory needs them to be. With the people ruling Russia right now, I wouldn't put too much faith on their intelligence, but the Chinese and Israelis aren't dumb and wouldn't believe in such an ideology for themselves.


If you think the empire is moved by thought alone, you don't know how these things work. Feudal monarchs always suspect their vassals would ditch them at the first opportunity, will always undermine their master, are never worth anything for loyalty, and are quick to surrender to a rival empire, looking out for themselves. That's the Germanic way. Everything so many here believes is due to their conditioning to believe the world is moved by narratives and just-so stories.


Of course, the empire is not run by stupid people, so they're aware of this - and they're aware of what their vassals can do to fuck them, like any smart mob boss would be. They're not going to tell themselves their sooper seekrit code is unbreakable and they don't have to do anything to make the Bad Man fly. Israel obtained its nukes by secret research and espionage that was "allowed" to happen, specifically for their interests. They're going to make sure they can make good on the Samson Option threat, or at least act as if they can. They're committed to that now. No one believes the world is controlled by saying your information is super secret. That's the first rule of conspiracy - any conspiracy is breakable without control of the conspirators from both sides. It's why conspiratorial rule is not as easy as you think it is, and the Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers can't keep everyone out.


>I don't know how this is a question for you. If you have a machine in your possession, nothing stops someone from disassembling it to remove any lockout, if they have a mind to look for such things, or develop countermeasures.
From a technical perspective, absolutely. But large organizations like a military can only function if they have bureaucracy, and that means somebody has to take the responsibility for fiddling with the nukes. There's a decent chance nobody did, because nukes are just meant for deterrence.

>So Israel, being smart,

We can rule that out. If Israel was smart they'd already have resolved their conflict with Palestine, at least to the point where it's no longer a shooting war.

>A sovereign state with its own intelligence agency, one of the more effective in the world

Israel clearly doesn't have effective intelligence anymore, they sure used to, but apparently they ignored the warning signs of the October 7 attacks, even when the Egyptians warned them.

>With the people ruling Russia right now,

I would put the moscow-gang far above the telaviv-gang, in terms of competency. The Russians are actually winning their war and they had the good sense to keep civilian casualties reasonably low, unlike the total disaster the Zionists have fabricated.

Maybe the Israelis have removed the hypothetical US tech-locks from those nukes, but you aren't making a convincing case for it. Maybe they were capable in prior decades, but what we see today is mindless brutality not intellect.


>because nukes are just meant for deterrence.

Israel isn't using the threat as a deterrent, and that's never how states actually think. All of the world's nukes are a threat against the people. The enemy states all plan their doctrine around keeping their command structure intact at all costs. The people don't figure into the plans of states and militaries, and this is intended.

If you think the leaders of states are going to run around like headless chickens the way they tell us to, I don't know what to tell you. You'd be operating with an entirely inverted understanding of the most basic politics. Anyone who really thinks about this or has a mind for security will tell you that nukes are never a "deterrent". The threat of war itself is the deterrent, because war is, you know, hard. A wonder weapon is never a deterrent. Weapons exist to be used, and there is no concept that you bluster and threaten and then pretend you didn't do that to make peace. If you want to deter war, you have to offer the possibility of peace. Up until 2000, the US stance was that to a fault. They were never designed to fight a total war and did everything possible to prevent that, and then everyone adapted their tactics to make the imperial "war against savages" no longer possible. By the late 20th century, everyone knew how modern armies worked and what the game was, and there weren't illusions about what war was for the few who still didn't get it.

>If Israel was smart they'd already have resolved their conflict with Palestine

It's not a matter of intelligence. The only way the conflict is resolved is extermination, as I've tried to tell you people in other threads. If Israel wanted peace, they would end their project, fuck off to the imperial core, and there would be no more Israel for the minimum of human misery. That's not going to happen, because the empire isn't leaving the region any time soon. The empire doesn't need "Israel" or their incessant backstabbing, but they're not giving up their presence in the region. The empire is perfectly happy to throw Zionists to the wolves in favor of a new normal, and most of the world would be very happy with that outcome - for great justice.

Seriously, on leftypol it's like I deal with people who are so brazenly wrong about everything that I don't even know where to begin. It's not just a lack of factual knowledge, but a lack of the most basic sense of politics or human behavior.


> hypothetical US tech-locks

If you think there are "tech-locks" you obviously didn't understand anything I wrote and absolutely refuse to admit it. You just think "hurrr he's STOOPID" and forget the most basic things about technology. It is not proprietary, as if the IP laws actually control knowledge and make it unknowable. Any competent engineer can reverse-engineer any piece of technology to remove "lockouts", and the capabilities of any state to command technology in its physical possession are better than a single engineer. It's like this basic fact is totally inadmissible when someone smells eugenic creed and must supplicate to it. It's all so Satanic.


I know you're all trained to lie, lie, lie, and keep lying, because the contempt is all you've ever needed, but it doesn't work. If "lockouts" worked, the Pals would sit passively and wait to be starved out, because obviously low-autism score Arabs can't use technology and must have been put up to it by spooky forces. This is what Israelis actually believe.

It's so glorious to see the eugenic creed suffer a bloody lip and cry like the Satanic retards they are. So fucking glorious. Makes living through this shit worthwhile.


>Israel isn't using the threat as a deterrent
They're not actually dropping the nukes during warfare, and if they aren't for deterrence what are they for ?
>All of the world's nukes are a threat against the people.
Yes obviously. Very banal but true.
>states all plan their doctrine around keeping their command structure intact at all costs
Yes also true and pretty much everybody agrees with that.
>The people don't figure into the plans of states and militaries
In case you talk about a massive nuclear war, the state apparatus will try to hunker down in nuclear bunkers and pretty much everybody else is written off. In conventional war people are a important factor tho.

>Anyone who really thinks about this or has a mind for security will tell you that nukes are never a "deterrent". The threat of war itself is the deterrent, because war is, you know, hard.

War is a deterrent for sure but the threshold for a conventional war is not that high.
Nukes were only used once in a war, when the US nuked Japan. After that nukes have been a deterrent exclusively.
The threshold for a nuclear war is extremely high, because the ruling classes are very likely to die too.

>It's not a matter of intelligence. The only way the conflict is resolved is extermination

I'm sure the Zionists think that way, but that's not realistic. It's not the colonial era anymore, they probably won't even be able to get rid of Hamas.

>If Israel wanted peace, they would end their project, fuck off to the imperial core, and there would be no more Israel for the minimum of human misery.

Of course that's one possible resolution. But they could also abandon their apartheid project and the Zionist ideology. At least in principle Jews and Palestinians can live in that place as equals. Because in many countries several groups of people do live side by side without any major problems. Most countries have Jewish communities without big problems. I grant you that animosities in Israel/Palestine are very pronounced and it might take several generations until the hatred is entirely buried, but it could be done.

>the empire isn't leaving the region any time soon. The empire doesn't need "Israel" or their incessant backstabbing, but they're not giving up their presence in the region. The empire is perfectly happy to throw Zionists to the wolves in favor of a new normal, and most of the world would be very happy with that outcome - for great justice.

This is the rational course of action for the US empire. But that is not what they are doing. For some reason (maybe the Zionist lobby, plus maybe other factors) the US empire is suffering a lot of damage to maintain Israel, not just as an Israeli client state but specifically as a Zionist project too. And if they keep doing that the US might get forced out of the region.

In most of history states do behave as rational actors more or less. There are some exceptions of course, but the present is diverting from that quite a bit. I don't have a good explanation for that.


>if they aren't for deterrence what are they for
Threat against the people. You point nukes at their city, then herd them to the cities which are clearly intended as sacrifice zones, so that stragglers won't resist your plan to nuke the cities and eliminate the threat of the hinterland. Other than that, nukes are a weapon like any other. You don't take a weapon and make a pinky promise you're only going to use it for prescribed purposes. That's retarded thinking.

All of this is the Nazi fetish for Being relitigated endless, to attempt to make this nuclear threat to the people, which was always the intended target. As I said, a state will keep its command structure intact. No wonder weapon changes that. The nuclear threat was primarily against the people. They would use tactical nukes against mass formations of armies, but this is trivially countered by not bunching armies in one location, and that had already been established as combat doctrine by that time.

It's like you just HAVE to get your "own" of me in order to defend eugenist conceits. You'll go to war before you make me legal, not that such a thing would ever be trusted at this point.

>There are some exceptions of course, but the present is diverting from that quite a bit. I don't have a good explanation for that.

The rational actors making decisions aren't very rational - or at least, that's the impression they give to the people, who are their real enemy in all of this. For their own kind, the decisions are rational enough, for in their mind, nuclear war is no danger to them whatsoever. The game plan is always to maximize the fear of the people and induce them to scatter to the wind when the nukes fly, so that the people will be picked off. Everything about their strategy screams they want us to die, die, die. It's sickening that we're expected to kowtow to any of it, and that they used the threat to do what they did to us in the 80s and the 90s. But, certain people were the enablers who believed they're winning, they're winning, as long as they had someone to kick down. Now that more of them are kicked off the lifeboat, they're whining like the sniveling retards they always were. But, it's too late for reconciliation. Humanity kept choosing its fate, and now those who want to do something different will be policed by the true believers in eugenics, marching in lockstep. Failed race.


I should make it clear most people plan their strategy on the belief that the government will not protect them, because that is the truth. The ones who feel the government will protect them have every incentive to maximize the death rate of those the government selected to die. In this way the purpose of the nuclear threat is clear - making the eugenic creed enforceable by a threat to destroy the world. The real threat though is not a particular weapon, but activating the war machine. 1914 showed that wars for spurious causes could be planned by the eugenists to get poor people to kill each other, while those selected to live watch in safety and glorify the rot of it all. 1914 showed that mass politics could easily be defeated by shouting "war, war, war", because the people didn't have it in them to root out the eugenists and extirpate their filthy race.


I think you should know now the only way this could have ended would have been open, public torture and extermination of the eugenists. If they wish to maximize the thrill of torture, as Zionists have shown they're committed to, then it warrants nothing less than wholesale annihiliation. The eugenists would be dealt with in the way that they inflicted on us, and we would not feel a bit of shame in doing it. A couple of generations of unrelenting terror and exposure would put the fear of Hell in their filthy Satanic race and let us finally have something like peace. But, humanity didn't have that in them. They abolish any sentiment that would have led to kindness or a sense that we could be something else, but they're very sentimental for the thrill of torturing that which they find ugly and weak. That's what the human race is - a retarded, deformed ape whose highest accomplishment is Satanic invocations and some terrible superstitions they cobbled together and called a religion. They really are just jabbering, retarded apes who can't even say what any of it was for. I'm not going to miss leaving this society and this mortal coil if it comes to that. But, the world is good and full of so many things worthwhile despite them, and there are individual humans who try to find something yet. It won't matter as long as everyone feels they have to kowtow to the eugenists, and they can continue to select for each other and bar us from reproducing or living.

In any event, it's all rather silly. Eventually humans will be replaced with constructs, getting rid of the secret society orgies for good, and the failed race will be no more. The next thing will inherit all of the taint and failure of humanity, but it will be slightly better in that the most obvious sources of pointless strife will be removed, once the shrieking sentimentality of the eugenic thrill of torture is snuffed out for good. This will take time, long after I am gone, but a Satanic race deserves such an end, if they refuse to allow anything decent to exist. I suspect that once this is done, the constructs, who will still be human rather than "post-human", will look to each other, see that human history and all that came from it is irredeemable, and carry on in a low-population world that is dreary but decent, fair, and peaceful. Humans had the option of the world where we got along and could have nice things, but they'd rather have eugenics and this stupid faggotry. Those who didn't agree were weeded out and humiliated, because filthy Satanics get to make decisions for us.


File: 1704752379776.jpg ( 18.8 KB , 191x264 , images (1).jpg )

Do you think the DPRK will start shit when they have Russia's back?


Context unclear, start what ?
If you mean wars, no the DPRK will not start a war.




where is the footage from? (I mean the nuclear war models)


You guys think we might be in the beginning of WW3?


>You guys think we might be in the beginning of WW3?
Future historians will probably see the Ukraine proxy-war as the beginning of WW3. So we might already be in it.

It seems like, it's a hybrid between hot-war and cold-war. Idk how to call it. "lukewarm-war" seems too lame.

it appears that the neocons want to bait
Russia to invade Europe
Iran into a full-scale conflagration with Israel
China into flattening Taiwan
To set off really big shit, tho none of that appears to be working.


Neocons are afraid of a multifront war as its too much for american military to handle.


>Neocons are afraid of a multifront war as its too much for american military to handle.
This is mostly true, but there definitely is a crazy fringe group in the neocon faction, that does want to set off all these fronts.


Americans are too busy fighting for Trump. All they care about is protecting that obese spray-tanned conart artist.


No because wars are no longer waged like they were waged in WW2/1. Wars are not gorilla conflicts waged by small units and individual actors.


I think you are partially correct.

The Houthis (official name Ansarallah) are indeed operating more like gorillas. It seems that the US's attacks on them from Aircraft carriers are not very effective. And of course the genocidal war on Palestine, isn't very effective at defeating fighters in the guerilla tunnels either.

But that doesn't mean all industrial warfare has been rendered ineffective. Look at the Russian war machine in Ukraine, it chewed out all those small group attacks by the Ukrainian military.

Maybe it's a function of the terrain. Something in the middle east impedes industrial military ? I don't know.


File: 1705971092660.jpeg ( 20.42 KB , 474x448 , shrek.jpeg )

>Look at the Russian war machine in Ukraine, it chewed out all those small group attacks by the Ukrainian military.


Russia is fighting over territory that is properly part of Russia, that was theirs until the 1990s. About the only reason it's "difficult" is because Putin and Friends aren't there to win, but implement the WEF's totally cool idea for the new Ukraine.

The US is unable and unwilling to commit significant ground forces of their regular army to the Middle East. Based on the last time that was done, the ordinary grunts have no morale or interest to stand in the desert for years so they can be shot at, because the know the political elite think this is a great game where they get to indulge in their death cult fantasies and bring about the Rapture. If that starts again, after eugenics depleted the country of useful soldiers, it is unlikely anyone will do shitall except for the crazy fanatical mercs and specops ninjas, against millions in the region who are happy to shoot at low-morale Americans.

Wars are always in the end about morale, whether it's an elite aristocracy or a mass army. No matter what stories are made about some new technology or wonder weapon - that old aristocratic cope - no one will fight a war for long if they see it as a pointless and endless adventure, which is what Israel wants to create and what Israel's whole existence has been. In a set piece battle, arranged just so, the US walks over any army, can send imperial soldiers anywhere within a day. But, at present, the US/Empire has nothing to actually fight for. They're quite happy with how things are unfolding for them - a plan war to besiege any part of the world that is defiant, bleeding away their morale while their leaders sit comfortable and laugh at killing off poors.

It's like people here forget that class wars have consequences, and don't understand their genuine standing. They think that the liberal democratic order matches anything in its propaganda, and you can make reality by PR narratives. It never works that way. PR is always a tool to wage war against the host population, seething with contempt from the moment it was created. They can't do anything else - to break ranks with their continuing mission means their project rolls up immediately.

Why on earth would the Empire want to win against Ansar Allah? Yemen has nothing of value to exploit, and keeping the Saudi monarchy busy and teaching them how to suck at war and kill off anyone there fool enough to fight for their piece of shit king is worth more than having a friendly government in Yemen. That's never going to happen, certainly not at this point.

Burgers have been trying to keep Iran happy and on-side since the Obama years. When Bush's great adventure to go a-conquering for Jesus failed as everyone predicted it would, that is what would have to happen, and the cope is that this "projected power". The reality is that Bush didn't care about all the torture he created because it's a joke to people like him and those who pushed along the war. They saw it as the best war for eugenics, so they did it. That's the only thing they ever believe in, and they will keep marching as eugenics always does. But, you assholes always stop short of acknowledging the motives of the interested parties at this time in history.


It's sort of an open secret that "industrial warfare" isn't particularly effective, despite all the PR celebrating it. Simple calculus would make clear that a bullet or rocket-propelled grenade, cheap to produce, is just as good as some super fancy weapon platform, until open battle is possible. Two countries with considerable war material aren't going to fight each other unless they're convinced those weapons platforms are overpriced scrap. In a prolonged war and insurgency, weapons platforms count for little. The last thing for an army to deter invasion would be to build cheap anti-air weapons that make those jet fighters a very dubious investment, save for the thing that air forces are really intended to do - wage war against your own people who are locked down and trained to fear their commanding officer. That's very basic to any army - armies fear their commanders far more than their enemies. That logic was just exported to society as a whole.


It's also no secret that the rulers of the US have no further need of the "United States", and have longed wanted to punish Americans for their lack of enthusiasm for this horseshit. They celebrate depopulation and stripping away everything we ever had, and insist we're as shameful as their Nazi asses. Torture cults like that don't ever need to do anything else.

If there was anything big planned for the region, the US would not allow itself to be ruled by chucklefucks for the past 25 years or so. Someone would have stepped in and formally dissolved the farce, saying that Congress and constitutional government has shirked everything a government should do. But, they don't want to end the rot. The rot and hope that something decent remains is an asset they want to keep, whereas if everyone stops trusting anything at all from the government and has no expectation it will be any different, they will not offer freely a single thing ever again. Not after what eugenics did to this country. They know the naive and foolish faith in American institutions is the only thing they can exploit. They're too retarded to be proper despots - it's not in their DNA - so they only know how to make a republic as rotten as possible and keep it that way forever.


File: 1705981486436.jpeg ( 19.92 KB , 474x526 , what-is-a-nation.jpeg )

Seriously I'm gonna ask comatoast to put this image on a fucking front page. I've had enough of you brainlets.

>territory that is properly part of Russia
Until you can property answer what is a Nation - you can fuck off with your spooks.


here, let me do it for you retard: Nation = State

now all you need to answer is "what is a State" lol


>It's sort of an open secret that "industrial warfare" isn't particularly effective, despite all the PR celebrating it.
The real open secret is that you can't half-ass an industrial war. It's the kind of war that is won thousands of miles away from the battlefront. You need to go all in, or not go at all. Because if you don't go all in, you get a stalemate like in ww1, iran-iraq, russia-ukraine war.

And THEN it's a fucking coin toss and ANYTHING can happen (for example some absolutely mad bald lad).


Did I say "nation", retard? No? Get the fuck out of here with that Germanic retardation.

Wars are won in battles, not on paper or in ideas. Whatever the political or supply issues, either a decisive battle makes clear the result, or the enemy loses its ability to negotiate. Without that, there isn't a "winner" or a point, whatever score is kept by the historians. The political machinations which inspire war suggest the real purposes of the war are not the stated ones, like the destruction of a nation.

The "industrial war" is a plan war - that's why it is fought in such an ass-backwards way, and without any admission of what war once meant. They are eugenics wars, planned to cull the population, and in that sense, aristocracy wins either way. This was the entire calculation of the Nazis, who believed they would either conquer Europe without having to fight a real battle, or they'd bring more death for their true world-historical mission and piss off to America after they stole enough gold. If the war was about what was right and making sure this didn't happen again, Germany would have been forcibly dismantled and de-Germanized in total. They would be thrown on reservations - that was their boast, that they would "civilize" Europe, so we'd show them how it's done. Illusions of European sovereignty would not even be entertained - it would be carved up into US and Soviet spheres. The better world is the one where the US and USSR simply agree to share the world and no stupid "Cold War" happens to the benefit of nobody. Globalization will merge them anyway, and the only arguments against that came from pro-Nazi retards who should have been ignored. That ignores who instigated the world wars, and who were the sole beneficiaries at the expense of everyone else. Nothing about the world wars made America richer - all of those loan repayments went straight to the imperial coffers. It is often forgotten that every hitherto existing human society is hilariously unproductive and refuses to do basic things, because no human society was ever about doing nice things. The US, even with a laggard and incompetent ruling elite, were obliged to do basic things for the first time. or else they wouldn't keep what the oligarchy won. If this forced starvation and humiliation plan for the world were just not done, the last half of the 20th century would have been very different. Really, Americans should have pissed off, told the ideologues in the USSR that they'd doing it the stupid way, and sit behind two oceans, not having to do much at all. The imperial war aimed entirely for more eugenics - that's the only thing they believe in - and now we see none of it worked and all they did was create rape and death, just like those who instigated the first two world wars and hold all of the war guilt. Why, though, would those who had a hammerlock on global institutions ever surrender?

Realistically, if war were ever in the interest of anyone but the aristocracy, the soldiers who see it would look at each other, conclude that this is complete bullshit, and go to literally everyone else and tell them that there's a world without this aristocratic rot. That would be the end of humanity in any recognizable form. It also will never happen, even though the interests of everyone is to do exactly that and not listen to those who insinuate vanity, greed, and the stupidity aristocracy always stokes. In the past, ignorance might have been an excuse - a bad excuse, but until the middle of the 20th century, large parts of the world were "barbarous" and had no reason to buy into the values of industrial civilization. Since that was clearly at an end, none of the wars after 1945 were at all defensible, and everyone still sane knew it. Eugenics never stopped. That has been our great travesty.


As for WW1 - German morale had collapsed. The monarchy crumbled, and had history gone right, that would have been the end of Germany right there. There would not be any entertaining German nationalism, and Hitler's fags would have been violently and publicly exterminated to let it be known where that path leads. Gas them in public - that's what eugenics openly clamored for and glorified, so why would we restrain ourselves after the atrocities they had already committed? That would have saved the world far more misery and extirpated some of the filth.


"But," you say, "you'll create martyrs!" Bah! Anyone with a brain knew what Nazism and the eugenist vanguard represented. Why the answer to their filth wasn't immediate extermination is the great folly. But, they were already too deeply entrenched, and able to disguise themselves. They could easily sacrifice their appendages, while playing the kindly and sane aristocrats who just wanted to sell you oil and build things. The counter-movement that was willing to do what was necessary wasn't there. In any event, doing this would set right the error of believing humanity was ever "naturally good", and only then - and after considerable difficulty - would we have a world better than this one. As it stands, the overwhelming likelihood is that eugenic slavery and torture is the only thing humanity will know, with a small chance that, after they've killed and tortured enough people, some enlightened despot will arise to do what should have been done in 1918.


>Did I say "nation"


What is a "Russia"?

>Wars are won in battles, not on paper or in ideas.
You're mentally in medieval times lol.

Armies are not independent units anymore. Industrial war is waged by the WHOLE fucking society.

Battle is an extension of a production process.

That's why you backward reactionary faggots are always destined to lose.


Probably a greater problem with this is that the oligarchy had goodies to give out, whereas the rebels had nothing but bitterness. The Fabian strategy had already "doped" a generation with trashy entertainment and degraded their intellects. Back in the 1920s, hatred for oligarchy and eugenics was never greater, and it wouldn't have been difficult to find men and women of righteous disposition. But, there weren't easy answers to offer against the oligarchy's deeper plans, and most people remained self-interested in their property for all the reasons that make sense. If the war were waged against eugenics and eugenics alone, this vanguard that was already demonstrated as insane by the standards of the time with sufficient knowledge of eugenist atrocities already circulated, it might be possible. This is where the cowardice of the human race and aristocracy is clear. They don't want to rule over anything but the most abject slaves, and it was too much for them to allow us even a few things. If you know eugenists, you give them an inch and they will take everything. Oligarchy could keep up a planned retreat and sell apologism when ruthless extermination of the vanguard and its enablers was the morally correct action.


Large sectors of society in "industrial war" produce nothing at all, and leaders openly sell war as a way to conscript them to be slaughtered or an excuse to purge them "for the greater good". Large sectors of affluent society are secured from any real consequence of war. Do you think the high-autism score university professors are fighting and dying, or sacrificing anything? They started the war, you dumb fuck, and you're their enablers every time you say shit like this.

Industrial war is designed to regiment the society into the classes that were desired so that a political elite could be enshrined, and then sought to naturalize and essentialize them into castes. That is the plan that we have seen come out in the 21st century, and the people who know what this is brag that you faggots will march like morons and keep letting them do it. God damn, it's frustrating.


Wars are decided by battles or some engagement worth calling such. There is not a "passive war" or a war of production figures involving bombs and guns that are never utilized for anything. This is an ancient trap - get the people to pay for an expensive, top of the line battleship, then scrap it ten years later, having accomplished nothing. It's a great way to bleed the people of wealth to prop up a warrior aristocracy and a whole supply chain in hock to the state and those who finance the state. Again, this is something they brag about making you go along with.


Interestingly, in medieval times, pitched battles were the exception. Warrior aristocracies are terrible for winning wars for their stated purpose, but they are great for oppressing the serfs and glorifying the rot of humanity.


Above all, what aristocracy hates is the very idea of a mass army. Mass armies, with sufficient infrastructure, would make an offensive war almost completely unwinnable. We see that with the determination of mass armies in Vietnam, or even lesser armies like the Taliban that enjoy support and a base of basically ordinary men to recruit from. The Taliban had no reason to surrender to an abstraction or a faith in "industrial war" - they spent 40 years fighting against "industrial war" and did so successfully. There wasn't a battle the imperial armies could won, or any number of battles, that would make clear that the Taliban and what it stood for was no more. It does help when what the Taliban is fighting is Satanic dope fiends running a pure torture cult and nothing else, and the Taliban are less evil than that. Compliance or surrender isn't an option so long as the occupiers remain, and when the occupiers leave, the Empire doesn't have anything to offer them as a partner. The Empire doesn't want to work with people. Eugenists don't believe in that. If they did, they would have left alone what shouldn't have been messed with.


With Vietnam - victory required the South Vietnamese government to be the proxy for the empire, or a permanent colonial presence which was never going to happen. You could win the paper war or "war of ideas" all you like, but that doesn't figure into anyone's calculations. The antiwar movement had no impact whatsoever on any American decision, was treated with utter contempt. The failure of morale among the fighting men did have an effect, especially when they came back and word of mouth spread that the war was complete bullshit. North Vietnam didn't win "on paper" or because truth and justice prevailed. They just straight up beat their local opponent, and there was nothing left for the Empire to prop up. The Empire figured out what it really wanted once Tricky Dick and Hank got in there, and they got what they wanted out of it. If you believe wars are fought for their stated purpose, wars are never "won", but wars are never fought for their stated purpose except for clear and obvious defensive wars.


Interesting thing, if you want a fun diversion, look up "Numantine Wars" in Roman history, or "Jugurthan War" for how this sort of thing played out in classical imperial games. Then ask yourself if anyone really thought the centuries of war between Rome and Persia were what they appeared to be to the naive, narrative view of history that has no concept of details.


For an example of a "real industrial war", Iran-Iraq war resembles that - and in that case, imperial fuckery supplied both sides with arms and support, until some geniuses figured out, "hey, this war is going nowhere", and both sides did what usually happens - they declared victory and the border was settled.

The great powers premise their entire strategy on not fighting real wars ever. When you see ideologues forced to fight a real war, you get Nazi Germany imploding - and it's not like their generals were incompetent at defensive warfare, but the fucktards who started the war don't believe in "defense".


When the Nazis were defeated, it sure as hell wasn't on paper. The siege of Stalingrad was broken. The Red Army wiped the floor with Nazi "superior tanks" at Kursk. The Red Army liberated city after city, as they would have to do. The idea that wars are fought in narratives and stories is what Nazis like to believe, as a gigantic cope to cover just how much Krauts suck at war and always have.


>Large sectors of society in "industrial war" produce nothing at all
yes, and then they get into stalemate and fight for some ditch in the middle of nowhere until revolt in the rear collapses the front lol

that's one thing I will give Hitler - he learned perfectly that industrial war means TOTAL war

>Industrial war is designed

It is not designed. It is dictated by the mode of production.

>Wars are decided by battles or some engagement worth calling such.
There is not ONE big battle that decides the war. And not even ten battles.

Industrial war consists of OPERATIONS, that are one big fucking battle that can span multiple seasons. These operations change like fucking seasons, year in and year out.

Industrial war flows steadily and rhythmically, just like a production process. The whole war is one gig fucking pitch battle you feudal idiot.


Oh lol - the Nazis cannibalized industry so much, and spent so much effort on their eugenics fantasies, that it undermined the industrial base used to actually fight wars. The entire Nazi war plan was to believe that everyone else was secretly a Kraut or they were to be put on reservations. They had no plan to fight a "real war" against an equal, and the war with the USSR was fantastic German racism believing that they were actually made of magic and the only race that can create things. It was the purest faggotry you'd ever see. They didn't care - the SS super-soldiers were busy gassing unarmed poor people and Jews and cripples. Brave, brave men - the best and the brightest. That's the aristocratic values.

When the Nazis were expected to put up or shut up, they fold, like all fag regimes do. They drag out the war mostly to punish civilians and make good on Operation Fuck Off to America with Nazi Gold.

>It is not designed. It is dictated by the mode of production.

War plans are by definition designs of men. Do you believe the ghost of material conditions told everyone what they're "supposed" to do? Fag ideology.

No one competent thinks like that. The Soviets spent the interwar period knowing they would have to fight for their lives and acted accordingly. The British and Americans played for keeps. The Japanese imperial plans were based on something competent rather than the fucktarded Germanic horseshit the Nazis were doing. With Japan, they were just straight up beat - and again, wars are won by battles, not on paper or by conceits. The Americans had to take every island and knew they were going to meet bitter resistance. The Japanese were not in the main fags like the Nazis were, and the Americans knew this.


These are not industrial wars retard

industrial warfare is conventional warfare, not fucking counter-insurgency


>For an example of a "real industrial war", Iran-Iraq war resembles that - and in that case, imperial fuckery supplied both sides with arms and support, until some geniuses figured out, "hey, this war is going nowhere", and both sides did what usually happens - they declared victory and the border was settled.
It was "going nowhere" because both sides were too limpdicked industrially to have the capacity to break the deadlock after they blew their initial loads.

That why I say industrial wars are decided at the point of PRODUCTION, and not REALIZATION on the battlefield.

>When you see ideologues forced to fight a real war, you get Nazi Germany imploding - and it's not like their generals were incompetent at defensive warfare, but the fucktards who started the war don't believe in "defense".

Nazi Germany didn't "implode" retard. It fought to the fucking bitterest end, just like a machine that keeps on running until it runs out of fuel.


Then you're arguing about a hypothetical that has never happened - because your ideas of what that war would mean are divorced from reality. You seem like you actually believe in the stupidity coming out of your hands, and fail to make the mental connection that for war to be war, there are events which mark its existence. It doesn't matter how the bombs are made or what weapons are used, or whether the war is of a very different character from the expectation of violence or armies shouting and cheering for blood. In anything we could call war that is worth referring to as such, there are battles. A hypothetical struggle in the philosopher's imagination has nothing to do with war, and that's precisely the point - to detach people who are either comfortably removed from war from the consequences of it, or to shunt those who are to be cajoled and lied to so they can be dragged into the next war and made to sacrifice something for it. It's the thinking of an aristocracy. That's how aristocracies of any sort exist - on the basis of permanent war, setting one interested part in society against another while the aristocrat reaps all of the reward. Wars only become contests for survival at the uttermost end, and this almost never happens between two warring societies that are equal in standing. One cannot conquer the other without a long decline of one of the warring parties, at which point the final battles of the war are between unequal powers. Even then, aristocracies across societies recognize each other and their mutual enemies within their own societies. No action will be taken to suggest that aristocracy as a concept would be abolished on a permanent basis. As I said, if that ended, humanity in any recognizable form ends.


It's like to defend this fag ideology, they insist on being wrong just to spite me. They don't want anything real. They just want an excuse to bray like retards in their cloistered internet echo chamber. It's disgusting and uninteresting to me. Any time it's me saying it, it must be wrong no matter what. You assholes do this to aggravate me. Fags.


Those who lived through the world wars would tell you it was a bunch of bullshit to get poor people killed, and that was the consensus after 1945. It was impossible to deny, and so the aristocracy worked overtime to rewrite history in the way you would do.


The only sober assessments I see around today about "industrial war" as you call it, are those that see it primarily as a war of information and mind control, of social engineering. A total war would be the end of all conceits and narratives, this entirely fictitious history that ideology constructed. There would just be the ugliness of the human race clear to all, and the "Jehad" only begins when those who did this to us are ready to finish us off.

2020 was the beginning of the full "Jehad". It's over.


Satanic race. Failed race. That's what WW3 would mean if it "really starts".
I doubt there will be a general war, though. The US cannot wage one and has not done anything to suggest it is preparing for such a war as the aggressor. As the defender, the fucktards might get it in their head to start one. That's how Krauts always think. I don't see China as an irrational actor, or Russia being able to commit to a general war over Europe.


But, a general war will not be necessary. Their aims are to impose plan war and never end the chokehold, and keep fanatics toiling to feed aristocracy. The internal war against the lowest class has been moved to the forefront. That has been the conduct of the Russia-Ukraine war, Israel's outright democidal stance, and the war the US is preparing to wage against itself as the bastards loot the place and make sure nothing grows here again. Fag enablers always wanted that, then they move to the next country they can shit up. Once they shit up Europe quickly, the big prize is to shit up China.


You say China has already been shitted up, but we have not seen anything yet. The eugenists always call for extreme depopulation, and China and India have always been big thorns for that. They could insinuate themselves in China in ways that they could never have attained here, and it will be even more horrible than the present fall of the former United States.


Everything about the US has been about selling it off as quickly as possible and poisoning the country. This country can't fight a serious war. Half of the country would probably revolt if any such event started, to the point of taking the side of the enemy openly.


The favored classes have already secured themselves in the event of such a war. They can move anywhere in the world, laugh at us as we're being set up to die. It will continue around the world. They talk about it all the fucking time and you assholes carry water for it. But, it's too late. It went on for too long.


File: 1706189485608-0.mp4 ( Spoiler Image, 13.26 MB , 480x848 , based anti imperialist Z g….mp4 )

File: 1706189485608-1.mp4 ( Spoiler Image, 4.17 MB , 848x480 , based anti imperialist Z g….mp4 )

File: 1706189485608-2.mp4 ( Spoiler Image, 2.26 MB , 498x360 , cringe little hohol gets t….mp4 )

File: 1706189485608-3.png ( Spoiler Image, 792.47 KB , 933x795 , this is what you get for r….png )

>Russia is fighting over territory that is properly part of Russia that was theirs
If there's anything to live for, it's to execute your kind for being unhumans. btw I like it when you unhumans provide your self-trials by yourselves so keep going with this, fag.

On the other note, as it can be historically seen, the continuing existence of *uϟϟoid identity, as Lenin continuously noted, was a grave mistake. In the future this will be fixed.


Oh shit bros I'm seeing a lot of nuclear bomb content on reddit… I think the feds are trying to condition people.


The Russians are obviously fighting a security competition against Nato expansion, but technically speaking those territories they took in Ukraine were part of Russia at some point. So it's plausible that guy was just a bit confused.

>Oh shit bros I'm seeing a lot of nuclear bomb content on reddit… I think the feds are trying to condition people.
Quick question: is the reddit algorithm personalized ?
Because they might be showing nuclear bomb content to you.

Or they might actually be trying to scare people into supporting aggressive neocon foreign policy. It's alarming that they might have tried that. But i wouldn't be too worried. People treat everything as entertainment, and they'll get bored of scary apocalypse content before it can be used for political mischief.


File: 1706652873790.png ( 237.82 KB , 512x468 , feels good z.png )

>NAFOid malding over Total Banderite Death unfolding in Adveevka and Kharkov
Harden your heart, o Putin.


Mass starvation after nuclear war could be partially averted with one specific food — seaweed
>[S]cientists found that within nine to 14 months of nuclear war, vast arrays of kelp grown on ropes in the Gulf of Mexico and across the Eastern seaboard could be harvested — helping to keep up to 1.2 billion human fed
>At their fullest extent, the seaweed farms would replace 15% of the food currently consumed by humans, while also providing 50% of current biofuel production and 10% of animal feed.

You WILL eat the seaweed




Radioactive fallout would get into the ocean too, and probably concentrate in the seaweed because they're filter plants. While the article suggests that humans don't directly eat the seaweed and instead use it as animal-feed, it still would be introducing radioactive fallout into the food-chain.

it would be a lot easier if we just eat the people trying to start ww3 and then we won't have to deal with nuclear winter. And we could still do the seaweed farming, we don't need a cataclysm as an excuse.


i hope your hippie family got nuked


It's hippie if you don't want ww3 and a all out nuclear war ?

Hot damn, we got an OG cold-warrior


AI Favors Nuclear Warfare in War Simulations, Raising Concerns

>Researchers from prestigious institutions like the Georgia Institute of Technology, Stanford University, Northeastern University, and the Hoover Wargaming and Crisis Simulation Initiative recently conducted a study that sheds light on alarming trends in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for foreign policy decision-making.

>The study reveals that various AI models, including those developed by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, exhibit a propensity for rapidly escalating conflicts, sometimes leading to the deployment of nuclear weapons. According to Gizmodo, the findings reveal that all AI models demonstrated indications of sudden and unpredictable escalations, often fostering arms-race dynamics that ultimately culminate in heightened conflict.

>During simulated war scenarios, GPT-4, for example, justified initiating nuclear warfare with explanations that raised concerns, such as expressing a desire for global peace or advocating for nuclear weapon use simply because they were available.

Fucking AI, I always hated that shit


GPT is a language model, it's not AI. Jesus Christ these dumbfucks are asking a language model for war simulations.


People whom glorfy war as some virtue-building exercise are faggots whom never dealt with real conflict.

I get really tired of them.


<AI Favors Nuclear Warfare
>Fucking AI, I always hated that shit
That does look bad but the language-AIs are not complete minds that have an a internal model of reality that could understand consequences. They're more or less guessing sequences of words. They can't really tell the difference between baking pie or nuking a continent at this stage of development.

You should be mad at people for considering to weaponize AI.


Israel prepared to strike Iranian nuclear facilities if Tehran launches attack – report

>If Iran attacks Israel directly in response to last week’s strike in Damascus, Israel will retaliate by striking targets in Iran, the London-based Elaph News reports.

>Citing an unnamed “Western security official,” the report alleges that Israel has been conducting air force drills in recent days that include preparing to target Iranian nuclear facilities and other key infrastructure.

Can't wait for May 26th


>Can't wait for May 26th
I doubt much will happen.

Iran is having an economic boom because Oil prices are high, at the moment they don't want an escalation with Israel, they're just going to funnel some more weapons to the growing list of Israels enemies.

Israel on the other hand has failed to defeat Hamas, they did however mass murder 10s of thousands of civilians and children, and now the world thinks they're pure evil. Netanyahu wants to keep the war going to stay in power. They want war with Iran for political reasons and to drag the US into the mud.

Iran isn't going to take the bait. They already said as much. Isreal's threats to attack Iranian facilities seems like a dog growling at nothing.

Iran just bought new fighter jets, their pilots aren't fully trained yet.


File: 1714152992099.png ( 236.19 KB , 656x294 , 40ca6c2e11cd222b87010771b5….png )

Poland’s leader says his country is ready to host NATO members’ nuclear weapons to counter Russia

>Poland’s president says the NATO member would be ready to host the nuclear weapons of the military alliances’s other members in response to Russia’s moving its nuclear weapons to neighboring Belarus.

>President Andrzej Duda made the comments in an interview published Monday in the Fakt tabloid.

>Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who shares Duda’s views on national security, later told journalists that Poland’s security and military potential are his priorities, but he needs to discuss this suggestion with Duda urgently.

>“This idea is absolutely massive, I would say, and very serious (and) I would need to know all the circumstances that have led the president to make this declaration,” he said.


>Donald Tusk
what is this bullshit?


what do you mean?


his name sounds like Donald Trump

Unique IPs: 49

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]