TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

carbon-mantis Collector Of Fine Oddities from Trumpland Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
#108678: Jan 14th 2016 at 8:43:32 AM

[NPR] Kentucky to dismantle state healthcare exchange. I'd call it the first step towards them entirely shitting on the state's healthcare system in a manner similar to the rest of the southern states. In regards to healthcare coverage, under the previous governor Steve Beshear Kentucky became something of a bright light in the darkness that is the rest of the South. Not only did it more than cut in half the number of uninsured, the program more than payed for itself despite the current administration claiming it was a cancer on the state's budget.

Another disappointment for me personally, as I was seriously considering Kentucky as a place for employment sad

edited 14th Jan '16 8:44:03 AM by carbon-mantis

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#108679: Jan 14th 2016 at 8:49:30 AM

[up][up] Because the Russians are modernizing their arsenal as well, and they have more actual bombs than us.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#108680: Jan 14th 2016 at 8:52:53 AM

[up] Really? This comes from the same well of awesomely reliable information that you draw on for all of your statements here?

(ahem). I think I'm supposed to say [citation needed].

Anyway, if they are, so what? What makes anyone think that a nuclear war is a rational possibility any more?

edited 14th Jan '16 8:54:02 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#108681: Jan 14th 2016 at 8:57:13 AM

Well Jack's right on this one. The Russians have been pouring money into their modernization programs across the board including their nuclear arsenal and the results are pretty terrifying.

Frankly our delivery systems are old and need to be replaced. Nuclear war obviously isn't going to happen but when we can't keep up our end of MAD then we've got a serious problem.

edited 14th Jan '16 8:57:53 AM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#108682: Jan 14th 2016 at 8:59:24 AM

So? Does that mean they'll use them at some point?

MAD is and was always a giant game of Chicken. It's a dumb principle to follow on principle. It would be better for us to dismantle our nukes and use them for energy

edited 14th Jan '16 9:00:58 AM by Xopher001

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#108683: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:04:44 AM

The material used to arm thermonuclear warheads is unsuitable for energy use, but yes, they would do us better broken down for scrap than constantly maintained at great expense for no purpose.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#108684: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:05:22 AM

Except that nuclear weapon possession and deployment is a line of no return in international politics - once you have them, you can never back out of having them. The apartheid South African government only did so because they didn't like the idea of black people potentially being able to decide whether or not someone gets nuked.

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#108685: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:13:42 AM

They are modernizing their arsenal! They are getting ready for war!

We need to modernize our arsenal! They are getting ready for war!

MEANWHILE IN RUSSIA

They are modernizing their arsenal! They are getting ready for war!

We need to modernize our arsenal! They are getting ready for war!

MEANWHILE IN NORTH KOREA

Why is no one afraid of me :(

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#108686: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:15:40 AM

[up] [awesome] [lol]

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#108687: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:27:10 AM

Well, the thing about MAD is that, it being a giant game of chicken is the whole point. You're setting up a game where the only way to win is to not play. And, you need a strong nuclear arsenal in order to do so.

Leviticus 19:34
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#108688: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:28:24 AM

Yep, and if one side can't retaliate then MAD collapses.

Oh really when?
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#108689: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:38:03 AM

What exactly would be the point of retaliation? killing thousands of innocent people out of spite ? Or so that were 'even'?

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#108690: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:39:26 AM

Deterrence

Oh really when?
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#108691: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:40:11 AM

The logic is that of presence. Implicit threats. It is not supposedly what you do, but what you do NOT do.

It i the equivalent of a mod coming here and saying "You better agree with what I say or I will ban you". If the mod bans the person then the mod has not found nayone to espouse his view, looks bad, and the other person is banned.

Lame comparison when compared to the certain death of millions, I know, but it is just for perspective.

That said, it is obvious this deterrence is something that does not work at all though. The threat of prison does not stop criminals, the threat of execution does not deter murderers.

edited 14th Jan '16 9:41:30 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#108692: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:43:22 AM

The theory is that in a nuclear war if one side can drop nuclear weapons on the other side without the other side being able to retaliate in kind, then that nation can do so without significant repercussions. If the other side can retaliate, then the first side won't use nukes at all, since it will merely result in their own destruction as well and gaining nothing.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#108693: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:43:56 AM

Denuclearization is an absolute. Either no one has them or everyone who already has it has them. And because we are unlikely to get rid of nukes everywhere, best you can do is slow down or stop others from getting it.

Modernization is not a bad thing either. Better to recycle the warhead into another warhead then let it lie rusting away, to cause far more damage to the environment. Getting rid of them would still require long term storage.

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#108694: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:44:28 AM

[up][up]It doesn't seem to work between India and Pakistan either

edited 14th Jan '16 9:44:57 AM by Xopher001

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#108695: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:45:12 AM

Pakistan and India still exist so MAD works great.

Oh really when?
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#108696: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:46:28 AM

Thats because nukes are the only thing stopping India from conventionally curbstomping Pakistan into submission.

TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#108697: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:50:21 AM

It doesn't seem to work between India and Pakistan either

Note that it's not part of the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction that MAD will eliminate all conflict, just that it takes away any incentive from using nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan are plenty hostile, and the US and the Soviet Union engaged in all sorts of brinksmanship and proxy wars throughout the Cold War.

But the nukes have never been dropped on a nation in war, except for a nation with them using them on a nation without them.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#108698: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:51:18 AM

The basic premise is that if someone, say, Madagascar had a bunch of nukes and nobody else had nukes, then Madagascar has free license to run rampant all over the world. They can drop nukes on all of their enemies without fear of repercussion. They win every war they start because they nuke everybody else's capitol and nobody can stop them; nuclear weapons are the Game-Breaker that guarantees victory to whatever side employs them.

But if Canada has nukes too, then Madagascar suddenly has to worry about retaliation for its use of nuclear weapons. Madagascar can still use conventional arms and Canada can still use conventional arms, and if they go to war with each other they can do it through conventional warfare, but Madagascar knows that if it shoots off some nukes at Canada then Canada will shoot nukes at Madagascar and they'll both be annihilated.

Thus, the main reason to have nukes is to keep someone else from having a monopoly on nukes and, by extension, all the power it brings to the table by being the only country with nukes. The United States is very familiar with this principle because of that time when we nuked Japan into submission and Japan could not retaliate. If Japan had nukes, the war would have been decided in the Pacific Theater rather than with the annihilation of two major cities in an act of war so devastating that the recipient nation surrendered immediately.

Nobody wants to be Japan in that scenario.

edited 14th Jan '16 9:54:08 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#108699: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:54:10 AM

All it has created however, are tom cruise action flicks and the fact that people can now still get to be shitlords because no one dares break the unspoken WMD pact :P

So because everyone knows that wether you use, or do not use nukes, you can still get away with the same shit it seems they are just a very, very, very expensive luxury item

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#108700: Jan 14th 2016 at 9:56:35 AM

As was mentioned, it's not about using them. It's about having them so that nobody else uses them. Their purpose is to sit there, look pretty, and remind other people not to use their nukes. The same effect would be achieved if every country disarmed their nukes, but if every country except one disarms, then that one country can fire nukes at leisure without fear of retaliation and wins global politics forever.

MAD is the Prisoner's Dilemma on a global scale, where every player is playing for the lives of billions of people.

edited 14th Jan '16 9:57:27 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

Total posts: 417,856
Top