The U.S. will very likely fight a 3-front war against Russia, China and Iran, Palantir's Alex Karp says
The U.S. will very likely fight a 3-front war against Russia, China and Iran, Palantir's Alex Karp says
"The president needs to tell them if you cross these lines, this is what we’re going to do, and you have to then enforce it."
As much as I like shitting on the US, I think all of the comments here are forgetting that this wouldn’t be a 1v3. It would be a world war. There would be no winners.
37And that Palantir is an MIC contractor. They would have this outlook because it would keep them busy. The reality of such a scenario is far more unrealistic.
17No winners is a fair outcome that I can live with.
1
Bloodthirsty, insane, and suicidal
21Americans love to role play at having a democracy, but when push comes to shove the public is never consulted about such monumental decisions like ending human civilization.
22We elect people to make decisions, that’s the whole concept behind representative government. We vote people in at the federal level who are supposed to protect us - it is one of their key responsibilities according to the constitution.
I understand that the concept of representative governance may be lost on people who have little say on those who govern them.
And just to be clear, no, ours is not a perfect system either. I’d prefer ranked choice to FPP voting, but even that has flaws.
-4
“I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”
What kind of reality does this guy live in? Like every adversary he mentions has either adopted a "No First Use" Policy or officially states that nuclear weapons are only to be used when the very existence of the state is threatened via a conventional military force or when being attacked by nuclear weapons. Contrast this to the US which "'reserves the right to use' nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict" or the UK which reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against "rogue states" (source: wikipedia article detailing all the above mentioned first use policies). How can you claim to have any moral superiority when your fucking bloc has these murderous policies in place? The western bloc has enshrined first use into its official policy and then this guy claims that only the adversaries of the West are determined to use nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy is beyond me.
12Not to mention that US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, and they didn't do it for any military purpose. They dropped them on civilian population to show USSR the level of depravity they were capable of.
7
I'm kinda feeling the "c'mon, go see the titanic" meme, but regarding a total war that Amerika has literally no hope of winning. Just one of those countries routinely low-tech kicks the shit out of our forces without the war games having to get railroaded by the peckerwoods just to "prove" an 'Allied' victory; what the fuck do they think tackling Russia and China too will accomplish?
10“I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”
There's a moral disparity alright, but it's not the US who has the moral high ground.
6we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”
See. I don't think the deterrent was ever meant to be a response to tactical nuclear weapons. They were meant to be a way to make sure that if World ending strategic nuclear weapons were fired against cities, that the response would be absolute.
I wholesale believe that western countries with strategic nuclear weapons would return fire against an attack in our direction. Just as it looked in wargames.
No we're not going to destroy the world if Russia or any other adversary uses tactical nuclear weapons. We have much more proportionate responses.
Or, maybe I'm just misreading it?
5Yeah, I fully expect that the US would start the apocalypse as soon as it was on a back foot in a major conflict.
6
I realize this is Lemmy so it is a race to make the most edgelord anti-US comment. I would be remiss if I didn't remind people of the shocking naivety of this mentality.
It seems many on this board believe that the US would get destroyed, western values would be undermined and some magic communist utopia would just naturally arise the world over in the aftermath. Wrong.
The conflict being described here would be a world war in which multiple large scale nuclear strikes would be deployed. Whatever country you are shitposting from wouldn't be immune from first order effects, let alone follow-on effects of such a disasterous exchange. Millions would die. You would be better off perishing in the initial salvos than struggling to survive in whatever Mad Max scenario your country devolves into in the resulting hellscape of nuclear fallout, zero international deterrence, likely cessation of emergency services on a local level, and all non local supply chains and communication channels being broken.
So, be careful what you wish for, and don't hasten the day.
-4Seems like you misunderstand, nobody wants US to start a world war. In fact, most people outside of US would love it if US would mind its own fucking business instead of running around trying to play world police. Yankees go home.
14We'd get a more relevant and intelligible response from ChatGPT. What an embarrassing manchild redditor tantrum. You are completely disconnected from reality.
1