12 ms·
It is so rich hearing that America can attack anybody, but godforbid an attack on the "homeland" is an unforgivable act that will invoke nukes immediately.
by integricho 6mo ago
It is so rich hearing that America can attack anybody, but godforbid an attack on the "homeland" is an unforgivable act that will invoke nukes immediately.
- unethical_ban 6mo agoNo one said nukes, that a giant leap even from the most crazy non nuclear attack. No one said the US is acting smartly, either, but it should not be surprising that the US would react harshly to a neighbor sending rockets.
- nevi-me 6mo agoTo an otherwise defenceless country, it's really the same thing. Indiscriminately flattening buildings without notifying civilians to move, destroying industries, stealing their resources and reserves. Who can recover from this, especially a small nation? You might as well declare everything to be radioactive. So they'd react harshly even when they started it.
- markdown 6mo ago> Indiscriminately flattening buildings without notifying civilians to move Boy they've really normalised this, haven't they? No, it's not okay to destroy civilian infrastructure and make people homeless just because you dropped a pamphlet 30 minutes before you did do
- fruit2020 6mo agoNothing happened to Israel for doing it. Have any level headed countries imposed any sanctions on them? Just condemning the leadership doesn’t count.
- jemmyw 6mo agoKorea. The US bombed every building they could and at the end were dumping bombs because they'd run out of targets.
- nl 6mo ago> Korea. What are you talking about? The US never bombed (South) Korea and they certainly didn't win the air war against North Korea.
- jemmyw 6mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Air-to-ground_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Air-to-ground_opera... > North Korea ranks as among the most heavily bombed countries in history,[305] and the U.S. dropped a total of 635,000 tons of bombs > Almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed during the war.
- kelipso 6mo agoBack when North and South Korea were Korea, the US killed more than 10% of the civilian population and razed every building of what is now North Korea.
- ceejayoz 6mo agoI would suggest that should be a little less acceptable in the era of precision weaponry.
- no_shadowban_6 6mo ago[flagged]
- ozim 6mo agoIt is so rich you assume an account created in 2013 having no karma is indeed American. Don’t forget this is the internet where 12 year old girls turn out to be 40 yo men.
- integricho 6mo agowhat are you talking about?
- account42 6mo agoThat's the whole point of having nukes - so others won't attack you.
- vbezhenar 6mo agoNo, it is not. Russia was attacked by Ukraine multiple times and nukes are still not used. India, Pakistan and China are in various stages of conflicts with each other for decades and all of them are nuke-enabled super-powers. There are three points of having nukes: 1. Deter other countries with nukes from using them against you, or your military ally. 2. Prevent total annihilation in the war. You can lose the war, but not too much. 3. Burn the world to ashes. Very few countries can do it. It effectively forces the whole world to make sure that this scenario does not happen. So you can be sure that scenario where Ukraine conquers Russia and completely destroys it - will be prevented by the very Ukraine supporters. They don't want to live in the nuclear post-apocalypse, because there are scenarios where Russia fires every single nuclear missile on every major city on the Earth. As Putin framed it: We will go to heaven as martyrs, and they will simply drop dead. America lost several wars, recently they lost Afghanistan war and right now they're losing Iran war. They won't invoke nukes to overturn the table, they'll accept the lose.
- H8crilA 6mo agoAmerica has lost every war in the recent past.
- edgyquant 6mo agoIt hasn’t. There hasn’t been a war in centuries where America didn’t obliterate its opponent. It loses politically because its people don’t want war, but it’s defeated militarily everyone it’s engaged with.
- myrmidon 6mo agoIf you can not win a war because your population is unwilling to bear the cost, then you are still unable to win (that is in fact a very typical way for a war to end). Nobody is disputing the fact that the US spends more money on arms than anyone else and has the shiniest of toys as a result, but "winning" in war is about effecting the outcomes that you want, not about whether your weapon systems are superior. The US military has clearly failed to deliver the outcome that Americans wanted in many recent conflicts (Vietnam, Taliban); counting those wars as "lost" makes a lot of sense.
- matheusmoreira 6mo agoThat's how nukes work. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the world is divided into haves and have-nots. Anyone lacking effective nuclear response can be steamrolled by those who do with total impunity. The USA has been attacked before but it has never been invaded and forced to fight a war on its own soil against foreign enemies. It's possible that they unconsciously believe war is something they bring to others, never something others bring to them. It's impossible to predict how traumatizing it would be for them if that belief is proven wrong. They could absolutely reach for nuclear weapons if that threshold is reached.
- numeric83 6mo agoThe War of 1812 says "hello"
- matheusmoreira 6mo agoIt was fought on US soil but did they really get invaded in that war? They declared war on Great Britain. They even invaded Canada themselves. It just doesn't seem to match the conflicts the USA brings upon other nations.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- npongratz 6mo agoIt might be mere semantics, but the 1814 burning of Washington has been depicted as an invasion. https://archive.org/details/burningofwashing00pitc https://archive.org/details/burningofwashing00pitc
- dragonwriter 6mo agoYes, they got invaded. Just because it happened after they invaded someone else doesn't make it any less an invasion.
- freedomben 6mo agoThat was my first thought too, but I think it's overly pedantic. If we're reaching all the way back to 1812 then I think parents point is true in spirit if not letter
- chii 6mo agothat is what it means to be a superpower. Don't be naive and think that there's natural justice and the world is fair.
- throwawayqqq11 6mo ago> When Us attacks Cuba > Cuba might drone strike US homeland > Cuba gets flattened Being a superpower means being free of ethics or reason. 'We are the good' sufficently summarizes a regular US-born worldview. You also shouldnt be too naive to think, US citizens would bring up ethics or reason when choosing their leaders or commenting on their own countrys aggression. Why do you think, the world is unfair? Some decades ago, we had a world police.
- lizardking 6mo ago"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"
- PKop 6mo agoHow is this not just common sense? Why would we care more about foreigners' interests than our own? You're trying to apply a moral frame to a discussion of self interest and geopolitics. "The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must".
- dinkumthinkum 6mo agoI don’t know what rich means here or why homeland is in scare quotes but that’s the way it is. An attack on the US will be met with unrelenting and unstoppable force. I see a lot of delusional posts that seem to indicate people think the US military capability is weak but I assure you it is not. Also, you do realize the Iranian people were pleading for the US to attack. All these people holding vigils are fir the Ayatollah are just embarrassing themselves.
- integricho 6mo ago[dead]
- subjectsigma 6mo agoWhat a stupid thing to say. Are you suggesting America should let others attack their homeland for some reason?
- integricho 6mo ago[dead]