![](/static/253f0d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
If you want to see what that would be like, watch this scene from the movie “Nixon” (1995).
If you want to see what that would be like, watch this scene from the movie “Nixon” (1995).
Though your brother’s bound and gagged And they’ve chained him to a chair Won’t you please come to Chicago Just to sing
In a land that’s known as freedom How can such a thing be fair Won’t you plaese come to Chicago For the help we can bring
We can change the world - Re-arrange the world It’s dying - to get better
— Chicago, CSNY
What makes Bannon so sure he would be one to benefit from a second Trump presidency? He could just as well be persecuted. Trump shows no allegiance to anyone and is happy to throw his supporters under the bus when expedient.
The only real question left in this war is: if Putin orders a nuclear strike, will he be obeyed?
Especially if you have a media empire that is useful to discredit those opposing your invasion.
Does that mean Germany will have the exotic negative energy that makes constructing a wormhole possible?
I don’t get it, I would prefer my own Private Idaho.
The Russians have nuclear submarines. No amount of bellicose bravado will blunt the sting of those.
Nuclear war is a very real possibility. If Putin becomes desperate enough, he will try to go to the very edge of brinksmanship. In this situation, with launch on warning, any perceived provocation could rapidly escalate. As the fear of a preemptive strike increases, so does the probability of a preemptive strike. Rationality gives way to fear. This is the logic and danger of brinksmanship: that the more you rely on it, the more likely it is to escalate out of control before one side backs down.
How the tables have turned.
The outcome of the war in Ukraine has always been a game of chicken, being which side is willing to escalate to nuclear weapons, and whether the other side may or may not back down. The logic of escalation has always been that no possible gain exceeds the losses caused by a nuclear exchange. The Madman theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory ) is about convincing one’s opponent that is one is not rational, and is willing to use nuclear weapons despite the losses. The threat then, is that Putin, seeing himself politically vulnerable because of his losses, but still powerful enough to command the military to use nuclear weapons, would demonstrate his willingness to use nuclear weapons, even if not directly against a military target, in a demonstration (perhaps in the Black Sea) or an exoatmospheric test.
Yeah the pigeonhole principle here would seem to dictate that, or some principle involving holes anyways.
What a poseur.
The CCP can artificially depress the value of their currency and subsidize their industries indefinitely. They are doing this on the backs of their workers, who should earn more for their labor. They are doing this because their own workers are too poor to provide sufficient domestic demand for their consumer goods, however, this strategy just makes their workers poorer, exacerbating the problem. Chinese exports should be used to make their economy self-sustaining, but they just perpetuate economic bubbles and malinvestment that cause economic stagnation. Neither domestic nor international commerce has never been free of interference or fair.
Hydrogen is an electron and proton. I am guessing that most protons have been fully ionized many times since the beginning of the universe, thus not being complete intact atoms. Checkmate scientists!
The Soviets had COMINTERN. The CCP wants to rely on shared Chinese identity.
The Ukrainians should capitulate like the Franks at Poitiers or the Venetians at the Battle of Lepanto, or the Austrians at the Battle of Vienna. Perhaps if the Ukranians were Catholic, the Pope might support their resistance more.
When you have a madman threatening nuclear confrontation, when does the probability of a first strike that might prevent significant retaliation have fewer megadeaths than being the victim of a first strike? This is the problem with sustained nuclear sabre rattling. What if its taken seriously?
Is Begum stateless? I thought that the UN “Conventional relating to the status of stateless persons” forbids the removal of citizenship that renders a person stateless. She may have to return to the UK to face criminal charges due to her cooperation with a terrorist group, but I do not think the UK is allowed by the Convention to revoke her citizenship.
He didn’t even have to hide gold bars in his underwear like Menendez.