Putin in Russia (II): Spicy Island Liberation Front

[Rhyis.]

any person/nation/whatever that is willfully upping the global nuclear threat level in the year 2022 is probably a little insane

chill out and have some borscht

[Spicyryan]

any person/nation/whatever that is willfully upping the global nuclear threat level in the year 2022 is probably a little insane

chill out and have some borscht

It was a lot more sane in the 60s, but fuck, what didn't anyone do in the 60s?

Then again, they didn't have Instant Pot borscht in the 60s, and I love me some Instant Pot borscht.

[Rhyis.]

everyone was both high and stupid in the 60s

[Spicyryan]

everyone was both high and stupid in the 60s

How little anything changes.

[Andalusian girls]

But also I'm not so insufferably pedantic as to infer clinical diagnosis from "yeah that dude is insane."

define insufferably

[Andalusian girls]

have u learned nothing

[kuronosan]

we gotta let em know

[Zealot]

define insufferably

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

What a pathetic mobilization:
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1586159620107952128

[Gredival]

any person/nation/whatever that is willfully upping the global nuclear threat level in the year 2022 is probably a little insane

It was a lot more sane in the 60s, but fuck, what didn't anyone do in the 60s?

It was though.

Whether or not it was sane to GET into the Mexican stand-off that was mutually assured destruction, it is definitely sane to MAINTAIN mutually assured destruction in a world in which we are already there. It is completely rational to refuse to be the one to lower your guns first when in a stand-off when doing so allows the enemy to to disable your second-strike capability.

That's not to say there weren't options to de-escalate that we didn't pursue, nor to deny that the Truman doctrine's pledge to support "free peoples resisting subjugation" was nothing more than thinly veiled code for "anyone resisting commies no matter how horrible they were," but the global nuclear threat level plateaued early on in the Cold War after we had enough nukes to blow up the planet twice over.

Putin is escalating tensions by purposefully maintaining that he would be willing to engage in first use as an offensive measure in a war he started.

Insane the way AG is defining it? No. Insane colloquially? Most assuredly.

[Cail]

https://twitter.com/conflicts/status...MKWdpEGQTfKD-A

[Cail]

https://twitter.com/ikhurshudyan/sta...MKWdpEGQTfKD-A

[Outlaw]

but the global nuclear threat level plateaued early on in the Cold War after we had enough nukes to blow up the planet twice over.

A dozen times actually. I read one time that at the height of the Cold War the Soviet Union and the US had enough to completely destroy the entire surface of the planet 12x over.


Sent from my SM-A505U1 using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

A dozen times actually. I read one time that at the height of the Cold War the Soviet Union and the US had enough to completely destroy the entire surface of the planet 12x over.


Sent from my SM-A505U1 using Tapatalk

No I meant that everything beyond twice was irrelevant (once for after the US had enough to do it and once for the USSR having enough to do it). Everything after that was overkill that didn't really escalate the risk any higher. We kept building to be sure that the second strike would be devastating even in the worst possible scenarios of losing most of our ICBMs, but really birds in the air and subs in deep ocean were a guarantee of at least some second strike.

[Andalusian girls]

Insane the way AG is defining it? No. Insane colloquially? Most assuredly.

define what you consider colloquial insanity to be

[Outlaw]

No I meant that everything beyond twice was irrelevant (once for after the US had enough to do it and once for the USSR having enough to do it). Everything after that was overkill that didn't really escalate the risk any higher. We kept building to be sure that the second strike would be devastating even in the worst possible scenarios of losing most of our ICBMs, but really birds in the air and subs in deep ocean were a guarantee of at least some second strike.

I know. I just brought that up because I think it's really scary how many were made.

Sent from my SM-A505U1 using Tapatalk

[Athas]

Well it depends on what your definition of is is.

[thetruepandagod]

define what you consider colloquial insanity to be

the depths of your love for me

[Rhyis.]

I know. I just brought that up because I think it's really scary how many were made.

Sent from my SM-A505U1 using Tapatalk

even though the number of strategically deployed warheads is vastly lower today (like 50k less or something), tbh i think it's way scarier now because of how much more advanced missile guidance systems are, and payloads being way more explosive

[Uzor]

What's the point of being able to destroy the entire surface of the planet twice over? Destroying your enemy and their allies would be understandable, but why drag Africa, South America, and the poor penguins/polar bears into it?