Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.world

24 replies

slrpnk.net

Can’t be passed over for the Nobel peace prize if the prize committee is reduced to radioactive slag.

10

On the plus side: Building and maintaining a nuclear stockpile is extremely expensive. This will serve as yet another open, gushing tap on Russia's finances as they haemorrhage money from the war.

14
gigachadreply
sh.itjust.works

I don't think this is a good deal for the US. It costs them equally much, and China will also gain the "official" opportunity to make nuclear tests, a field where they don't have as much experience as the US the the regional power Russia.

8

China wolnt waste the money. They'll have all the US test data and probably most of the Russian.

4
Typotyperreply
sh.itjust.works

Did you mean the US's gushing Tap. They racked up another trillion this year. Its now over 38 Trillion

2

While the US budget is financially in freefall, that could be remedied very easily (with a more competent administration) and won't meaningfully impede its ability to aid Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, can be screwed by extreme expenses.

1
programming.dev

Next announcements are coming from China, N. Korea, Pakistan, India and so on. Israel will cowardly remain silent. So much winning, so much peace.

6

Israel doesn't have to say anything. The US government is under them even without the nukes everyone assumes they have.

1

Perhaps this is the first step towards a new START treaty that includes the countries you mentioned? I doubt that's Trump's intentions but that outcome seems probable if everyone starts testing.

1
sh.itjust.works

Lol, Vladdy already tried a nuclear test. Was it last year? This year? I forget... Either way, it failed.

2
lemmy.world

Are you sure you’re not thinking of a test of a nuclear-powered thruster for a non-nuclear weapon?

That’s an important distinction.

7
Doomsiderreply
lemmy.world

You mean a dirty nuclear bomb/rocket that can easily swap out a conventional warhead for a nuclear one.

That is not an important distinction. It was a nuclear test.

-5
remonreply
ani.social

Testing a nuclear reactor (which happens all the time, all over the place) is very different from testing a nuclear bomb.

The distinction literally couldn't be fucking more important.

3
Doomsiderreply
lemmy.world

OP said nuclear test, not a nuclear bomb. It was definitely a nuclear test.

Furthermore, this is why Trump is asking for nuclear testing as a reaction to Russia's big bad new weapon. Also, the whole spend more money on the military angle that the US is obsessed with.

So there is no distinction because you are just wrong at this point on multiple levels.

-3
remonreply
ani.social

And the comment after that clarified that this article is about nuclear bomb test, not a nuclear powered vehicle, to which you then replied with the absolutely ludicrous statement that the distinction isn't important.

Feel free to keep arguing, but you're just putting on your clown make up right now.

3
Doomsiderreply
lemmy.world

Apparently, you need to comment on another thread where you are not blatantly wrong.

Also, you are acting pretty trollish for getting put in your place.

-5

You reached the end