President Joe Biden is looking at all policies put in place by Republican predecessor Donald Trump, with a view toward possibly rolling them back, but not so the U.S. Space Force.
I mean, there's totally a difference, just not that much on foreign policy/natsec shit. People talked shit about it but honestly having a dedicated Space-focused branch of the military was one of the more rational policies Trump had, there's a reason both China and Russia have them. Well, China's is folded into a general 'Strategic Support Force' that includes electronic and cyberwarfare too (another the US Military probably needs) but that's a relatively minor organizational difference.
Point being: splitting off the Air Force's Space Command into an independent branch was the correct decision, and it was gonna happen sooner or later. Space and cyberwarfare are both going to probably end up being the primary battlegrounds of the second cold war.
the way we prevent shit from happening is thru opposition lmao. and if you don't oppose nuclear weapons, kindly WTF. nukes bad. nukes bad. space nukes worse.
'someone else will do it' is such a cop-out just have some principles, christ
demonstrate, strike, organize. genie's been outta the nuclear bottle for 80 fukin years, has that stopped anti-nuclear activists? just because shit is hard does not mean its not worthwhile or necessary. if a better world isn't possible why are you even here.
the amount of nukes has gone down, every country with a semblance of democracy has a no-first strike policy, nukes haven't been used on human targets since 1945, testing is basically over, but the anti-nuclear movement hasn't gotten rid of every warhead so i guess they ain't done shit.
I'm not sure what significance it plays to today's geopolitics, but it's important to not forget how much the US has historically led the nuclear arms race. Chomsky is as anti-USSR as they come, but in "Who Rules The World" there's a chapter where he outlines how often the US ignored Kruschev's calls for denuclearization, and how justified Soviet missiles in Cuba were in the context of American missiles in Turkey (edited, not Ukraine lol sorry).
Your point is valid and you can't forget realpolitik, but I do disagree with you, I think the anti-nuclear weapon fight is super important. It continues to be one of the two main threats against humanity. Though it's important to remember that denuclearization should always primarily target the US, the imperial core, the forerunner of the nuclear arms race. I agree with you that we don't really have much say in demilitarization in general, but it's the same with climate change, and it's still worth fighting for even if the fight is disorganized and powerless right now.
anti-testing is an absolutely tangible gain, there's always more they could be testing if they wanted. you could say it was 'complete' by like the 80's too when they could wipe out humanity just with ICBMs but they still carried on another decade. they'd just love to make a wifi-enabled h-bomb
net reduction from 'could destroy earth 100 times' to 90 times would be an improvement, and the actual difference is much more dramatic
but bemoaning absolutely essential action as pointless is utter capitalist realism. 'the US didn't get out of Vietnam because of anti-war activism, may as well not do anything' 'Exxon Mobil will never allow a fully green energy grid, may as well not try' 'white supremacists will never give up so we should'
I mean I don't earnestly believe meaningful progress is achievable on any of the points through reform lol. I just think we need to be trying anyway. Any minor gains we can extract sans revolution are still good. putting pressure on the government is good even if we aren't outright winning.
Being anti nuke is good though, because even if you can't reach total disarmament, you can still reduce the resources going into building and maintaining them. Like, imagine if Trident was cut and all that was put into reperations or something.
deleted by creator
I mean, there's totally a difference, just not that much on foreign policy/natsec shit. People talked shit about it but honestly having a dedicated Space-focused branch of the military was one of the more rational policies Trump had, there's a reason both China and Russia have them. Well, China's is folded into a general 'Strategic Support Force' that includes electronic and cyberwarfare too (another the US Military probably needs) but that's a relatively minor organizational difference.
Point being: splitting off the Air Force's Space Command into an independent branch was the correct decision, and it was gonna happen sooner or later. Space and cyberwarfare are both going to probably end up being the primary battlegrounds of the second cold war.
uh I don't care if China and Russia have such divisions, shit is still in contravention to int'l law and bad.
death to all who seek to weaponize the exploration of space.
deleted by creator
the way we prevent shit from happening is thru opposition lmao. and if you don't oppose nuclear weapons, kindly WTF. nukes bad. nukes bad. space nukes worse.
'someone else will do it' is such a cop-out just have some principles, christ
deleted by creator
demonstrate, strike, organize. genie's been outta the nuclear bottle for 80 fukin years, has that stopped anti-nuclear activists? just because shit is hard does not mean its not worthwhile or necessary. if a better world isn't possible why are you even here.
deleted by creator
the amount of nukes has gone down, every country with a semblance of democracy has a no-first strike policy, nukes haven't been used on human targets since 1945, testing is basically over, but the anti-nuclear movement hasn't gotten rid of every warhead so i guess they ain't done shit.
deleted by creator
I'm not sure what significance it plays to today's geopolitics, but it's important to not forget how much the US has historically led the nuclear arms race. Chomsky is as anti-USSR as they come, but in "Who Rules The World" there's a chapter where he outlines how often the US ignored Kruschev's calls for denuclearization, and how justified Soviet missiles in Cuba were in the context of American missiles in Turkey (edited, not Ukraine lol sorry).
Your point is valid and you can't forget realpolitik, but I do disagree with you, I think the anti-nuclear weapon fight is super important. It continues to be one of the two main threats against humanity. Though it's important to remember that denuclearization should always primarily target the US, the imperial core, the forerunner of the nuclear arms race. I agree with you that we don't really have much say in demilitarization in general, but it's the same with climate change, and it's still worth fighting for even if the fight is disorganized and powerless right now.
the American missiles were in Turkey, Ukrainian SSR did not have American missiles lmao
Lol thank you, I'm misinformed as fuck I'm sorry. I wish there was a site-wide flair for "not well read." Maybe I should just stop commenting.
anti-testing is an absolutely tangible gain, there's always more they could be testing if they wanted. you could say it was 'complete' by like the 80's too when they could wipe out humanity just with ICBMs but they still carried on another decade. they'd just love to make a wifi-enabled h-bomb
net reduction from 'could destroy earth 100 times' to 90 times would be an improvement, and the actual difference is much more dramatic
but bemoaning absolutely essential action as pointless is utter capitalist realism. 'the US didn't get out of Vietnam because of anti-war activism, may as well not do anything' 'Exxon Mobil will never allow a fully green energy grid, may as well not try' 'white supremacists will never give up so we should'
deleted by creator
I mean I don't earnestly believe meaningful progress is achievable on any of the points through reform lol. I just think we need to be trying anyway. Any minor gains we can extract sans revolution are still good. putting pressure on the government is good even if we aren't outright winning.
No first strike policies are not a minor side aspect...
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Being anti nuke is good though, because even if you can't reach total disarmament, you can still reduce the resources going into building and maintaining them. Like, imagine if Trident was cut and all that was put into reperations or something.
deleted by creator