• grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    This guy going to start a nuclear war to keep people from talking about Epstein??

    • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      4 days ago

      I remember back when Trump got caught with all those classified docs there was a story about him showing off some about submarines to a rich Australian dude. There was a comment about how everyone in the navy knows that you do not talk about subs. Everything about them is top secret, and if it were anyone else there would be very severe consequences.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      IMHO what Trump writes about is just business as usual. Standard posturing (both literally and figuratively) that is happening anyhow all the time on all sides. Anyhow, all it says is “appropriate positions”, so I counter: shouldn’t military submarines always be in “appropriate positions”?

      Normally you wouldn’t tweet truth lie about something like that at all. My guess is one of his PR people thought a little fearmongering might distract from other issues…

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Boomers (ballistic missile subs) whole raison d’etre is to be the most powerful weapon platform of all time, be anywhere, be undetectable. MAD is predicated on not knowing from where the punch might come. Trump just said, “Sup bitch! We put boomers in your back yard and we’re not afraid to use them!”

      Of all the shit Trump has done, this makes my Gen X gut drop. He’s playing with world-ending apocalypse. The height of the Cold War didn’t see nation states fuck around like this. Never in my life, or history as I know it, has an American President or Soviet/Russian leader stated anything so provocative.

      Hadn’t been too worried about Russia’s nuclear arsenal, but it exists and Ruskies are paranoid bastards. This isn’t brinksmanship, nor Nixon’s madman theory, this is a toddler poking a rabid dog with a stick. And that dog is already starving, ravening and scared shitless.

      “Yeah, we have subs in the Pacific and Eastern Med. I know it. You know it. But now I’m telling you, telling the world.” That’s a fucking threat. In diplomatic terms this states, “Blink and I’ll fucking end you.”

    • lemmylommy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 days ago

      What should be a secret? That nuclear (propulsion or arms?) submarines are in appropriate regions? I should hope that that is always the case.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 days ago

        I wonder if that means he ordered them to be in the same places they were already planning to be…

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s like Israel’s nuclear capability. They got nukes. I know it. You know it. But in diplomatic terms, no one says it out loud. In diplomatic-speak, this is a fucking in-your-face threat.

        Put it this way, in diplo-speak “condemn” means, “We fittin’ to throw down! SOON!” This threat is an order of magnitude above “condemn”.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Considering this, I would normally treat anything said about secret weapons a bluff. But given who’s talking, I’ve no way to tell if it’s stupidity instead

  • Victor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    4 days ago

    Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.

    Is he… Is he talking about himself?

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Nuke subs just means powered by nuclear. They may or not have nuclear weapons.

      • edgemaster72@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        But do you think Trump means it that way? The dude has a hard on for nukes and wants to appear like a big, strong, threatening man (despite his itty bitty nuke chode), so to me it seems more likely that he’s referring to subs with nukes on-board. Assuming there’s any truth to his threat at all, which given the source, does warrant extreme skepticism.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        NO. Trump means “boomer”, ballistic missile submarines armed with a dozen+ ICBMs whose warheads splits into Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs).

        He’s made a clear and present threat: “I just ordered the most powerful weapon platforms into your backyard.”

        They know those boomers are somewhere, easily able to strike Russia. You know it. I know it. But in diplomatic terms, this is the worst threat I’ve heard from the head of a nation state. And I lived the Cold War.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          He is referring to boomers, no question. See my other comments on this thread.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    Why on Earth would you broadcast where you’re putting your nuclear subs? The entire point is for enemies not to know where they are. I mean I assume he’s lying, but fuck.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      Eh, it makes sense as a deterrent. And he didn’t specify where they are. But I don’t think he knows “nuclear submarines” are not nuclear armed submarines. They are just nuclear-powered, meaning they don’t consume oxygen to run (no fuel burned) and don’t need to resurface for a long time.

      • lividweasel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        “Nuclear-powered submarine” is basically redundant these days for the US, since they all are and have been since 2007. It can be safely assumed that a reference to a “Nuclear Submarine” in this context is one that is nuclear-armed.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I see nothing in that post that isn’t business as usual - except the fact that Medvedev and Trump, two man babies, apparently got into a fight.

      Submarines are always stationed in “appropriate positions”. This is just deflecting from other issues, you know…

      That said I’m not underestimating the danger the Trump admin poses for the world, generally.

    • lemmylommy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Did he? So you know where „appropriate regions“ are? And you think they haven’t been there before?

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      The “boomers” were already within ICBM strike range. This is common knowledge. Saying it out loud is a threat I’ve never heard, not even during the Cold War.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Oohh, we’re about to start WWIII again? Using Twitter? Just to distract the public from the fact that the US president fucked little children?

    Man these are such times to be alive! I’d be laughing hysterically if that wouldn’t scare the shit out of everyone around me.

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    This is what’s going, they’re having a dick fight.

    Medvedev:

    “Trump’s playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10 … He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war,” Medvedev blasted on social media earlier this week. “Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don’t go down the Sleepy Joe road!”

    Trump:

    “Russia and the USA do almost no business together. Let’s keep it that way, and tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he’s still President, to watch his words. He’s entering very dangerous territory!” Trump wrote in the early hours of Thursday morning.

    Medvedev:

    “It’s not for you or Trump to dictate when to ‘get at the peace table’. Negotiations will end when all the objectives of our military operation have been achieved. Work on America first, gramps!” Medvedev fumed.

    etc. Source

  • ToadOfHypnosis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 days ago

    Social media is not the place to release this type of inflammatory language. This idiot is going to put us in a major conflict. Anything to distract from Epstein. Billionaire narcissists need to be as far away from the levers of power as possible.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      Honestly this is just standard posturing, no threat. Not revealing exact positions either. Putin probably does this sort of shit daily (not on social media though).

      Anything to distract from more pressing issues as you said.

      And he clearly did not write this one himself.

      Taunting North Korea’s leader in 2017 by calling him “Rocket boy”*, that was a different matter: for a moment we all held our breath. Ultimately nothing happened, he even stumbled into probably his one and only diplomatic win, but still: that was inflammatory.

      * (and any number of similar tweets since then; that was just the first one while in office)

    • Case@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      I propose a new amendment. A person must be homeless for a presidential term before they can be allowed to serve in a presidential capacity.

      Then the least of us can lead with empathy, at least that is the hope.

      Then maybe we can get fucking health care, including mental health.