Why hasn't the media asked President Biden about a renewed effort to eliminate nuclear weapons?

[Craig234]

If we needed a reminder of the need, we have it. Biden doesn't mention it. I don't remember anyone in Congress mentioning it. I don't see European leaders mentioning it. And I haven't seen the press mention it. Yet it's at the heart of this war and remains a terrible threat to the world.

The US felt justified to use nuclear weapon for little reason in WWII, with something of a pretense that it would 'save lives' in our inevitable win in Japan; how much more justification would Putin feel to use tactical nuclear weapons if he's actually losing in Ukraine?

 

[Questerr]

If we needed a reminder of the need, we have it. Biden doesn't mention it. I don't remember anyone in Congress mentioning it. I don't see European leaders mentioning it. And I haven't seen the press mention it. Yet it's at the heart of this war and remains a terrible threat to the world.

The US felt justified to use nuclear weapon for little reason in WWII, with something of a pretense that it would 'save lives' in our inevitable win in Japan; how much more justification would Putin feel to use tactical nuclear weapons if he's actually losing in Ukraine?

Do you feel the US instead should have invaded the Japanese home islands?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

If we needed a reminder of the need, we have it. Biden doesn't mention it. I don't remember anyone in Congress mentioning it. I don't see European leaders mentioning it. And I haven't seen the press mention it. Yet it's at the heart of this war and remains a terrible threat to the world.

The US felt justified to use nuclear weapon for little reason in WWII, with something of a pretense that it would 'save lives' in our inevitable win in Japan; how much more justification would Putin feel to use tactical nuclear weapons if he's actually losing in Ukraine?

Now they're afraid we might need them.

 

[Craig234]

Now they're afraid we might need them.

Why? Unlike Russia, we have the military strength with conventional weapons for any threat in the world. Why would we want the world destroyed with nuclear weapons?

 

[Deuce]

Why? Unlike Russia, we have the military strength with conventional weapons for any threat in the world. Why would we want the world destroyed with nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons makes conventional forces irrelevant and not everybody is going to give them up

 

[BirdinHand]

Nuclear weapons aren’t going anywhere.

 

[craig]

If we needed a reminder of the need, we have it. Biden doesn't mention it. I don't remember anyone in Congress mentioning it. I don't see European leaders mentioning it. And I haven't seen the press mention it. Yet it's at the heart of this war and remains a terrible threat to the world.

The US felt justified to use nuclear weapon for little reason in WWII, with something of a pretense that it would 'save lives' in our inevitable win in Japan; how much more justification would Putin feel to use tactical nuclear weapons if he's actually losing in Ukraine?

Because it is not practical. Nothing less then a world government will allow that.

 

[Bullseye]

If we needed a reminder of the need, we have it. Biden doesn't mention it. I don't remember anyone in Congress mentioning it. I don't see European leaders mentioning it. And I haven't seen the press mention it. Yet it's at the heart of this war and remains a terrible threat to the world.

The US felt justified to use nuclear weapon for little reason in WWII, with something of a pretense that it would 'save lives' in our inevitable win in Japan; how much more justification would Putin feel to use tactical nuclear weapons if he's actually losing in Ukraine?

"little reason"? The potential for millions of deaths in an invasion of the Japanese homeland?

 

[Loulit01]

A pandemic, supply chain problems, a war in Eastern Europe, out of control inflation, conservatives passing insane abortion laws, a seat on SCOTUS that may make history, a housing crises, and we're looking a recession in the face. Sure, let's bring nukes into play now.

 

[Craig234]

Because it is not practical. Nothing less then a world government will allow that.

It's entirely possible every government will be willing to do it, subject to a mechanism for enforcement. In fact, they've already largely agreed, including the US and Russia IIUC.

 

[Craig234]

A pandemic, supply chain problems, a war in Eastern Europe, out of control inflation, conservatives passing insane abortion laws, a seat on SCOTUS that may make history, a housing crises, and we're looking a recession in the face. Sure, let's bring nukes into play now.

They're already in play now. And they could change all of the issues you list.

 

[craig]

It's entirely possible every government will be willing to do it, subject to a mechanism for enforcement. In fact, they've already largely agreed, including the US and Russia IIUC.

Never.

 

[Craig234]

Never.

Wrong.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Why? Unlike Russia, we have the military strength with conventional weapons for any threat in the world. Why would we want the world destroyed with nuclear weapons?

To counter the perceived threats.

 

[Antiwar]

The media I listen to says it often.

 

[Antiwar]

It's hard to believe how unwise most people are, to put it nicely.

Mutually assured destruction is the stupidest mother****ing thing in this stupid man-****ed up world. Use your frontal lobes.

 

[Antiwar]

Do you feel the US instead should have invaded the Japanese home islands?

1945 called. They want their mentality back.

 

[MaryP]

It's hard to believe how unwise most people are, to put it nicely.

Mutually assured destruction is the stupidest mother****ing thing in this stupid man-****ed up world. Use your frontal lobes.

And trusting countries like Russia and North Korea to actually throw them all away? The second stupidest mother****ing thing in this ****ed up world.

 

[brianpatrick]

If we needed a reminder of the need, we have it. Biden doesn't mention it. I don't remember anyone in Congress mentioning it. I don't see European leaders mentioning it. And I haven't seen the press mention it. Yet it's at the heart of this war and remains a terrible threat to the world.

The US felt justified to use nuclear weapon for little reason in WWII, with something of a pretense that it would 'save lives' in our inevitable win in Japan; how much more justification would Putin feel to use tactical nuclear weapons if he's actually losing in Ukraine?

Aren’t they having talks with Iran to get back into nuclear deal?

 

[Antiwar]

And trusting countries like Russia and North Korea to actually throw them all away? The second stupidest mother****ing thing in this ****ed up world.

That's not how nuclear abolishment treaties work. 90% of nuclear weapons have already been eliminated.

 

[MaryP]

A pandemic, supply chain problems, a war in Eastern Europe, out of control inflation, conservatives passing insane abortion laws, a seat on SCOTUS that may make history, a housing crises, and we're looking a recession in the face. Sure, let's bring nukes into play now.

It would be the right time to discuss it. A lot of people have been frightened by the spectre of these damned things. But it's a pipe dream.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Do you feel the US instead should have invaded the Japanese home islands?

There was no need for any land invasion.

OTOH, there were conventional bombing runs in WWII that killed more people than the atomic bomb blasts.

What were the Japanese going to do with no Navy or Air Force? Iwo Jima was pretty much a gigantic waste of lives as well. They didnt need that air strip. It was just a meat grinder with no real purpose. Thats how it often is.

 

[MaryP]

That's not how nuclear abolishment treaties work. 90% of nuclear weapons have already been eliminated.

How does it work? How were those 90% physically eliminated and how come so many countries still have them (and are building them)?

 

[Loulit01]

There was no need for any land invasion.

OTOH, there were conventional bombing runs in WWII that killed more people than the atomic bomb blasts.

What were the Japanese going to do with no Navy or Air Force? Iwo Jima was pretty much a gigantic waste of lives as well. They didnt need that air strip. It was just a meat grinder with no real purpose. Thats how it often is.

The American invasion of Iwo Jima began on February 19, 1945, and continued to March 26, 1945. The battle was a major initiative of the Pacific Campaign of World War II. The Marine invasion, known as "Operation Detachment", was charged with the mission of capturing the airfields on the island for use by P-51 fighters, and rescue of damaged heavy bombers that were not able to reach their main bases at Guam and Saipan; until then Japanese warplanes from there had harried U.S. bombing missions to Tokyo.

Iwo Jima - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Get a clue, Generalissimo.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The American invasion of Iwo Jima began on February 19, 1945, and continued to March 26, 1945. The battle was a major initiative of the Pacific Campaign of World War II. The Marine invasion, known as "Operation Detachment", was charged with the mission of capturing the airfields on the island for use by P-51 fighters, and rescue of damaged heavy bombers that were not able to reach their main bases at Guam and Saipan; until then Japanese warplanes from there had harried U.S. bombing missions to Tokyo.

Iwo Jima - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Get a clue, Generalissimo.

Gosh, thanks for the Wiki official version. LOL.

Iwo Jima was definitely a net loss when you factor in the 36,000 Marine casualties that it took to capture that god forsaken rock.

dis - M I S S E D ! ! ! ! Generalissimo.