News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by 01100011 on Saturday March 01, 2025 @02:32AM (#43216881)
The benefit of the reserve currency is our ability to run huge deficits and the result is a loss of our industrial base. It's a double-edged sword but one that ends up leaving us vulnerable. If we had a major non-nuclear conflict with China, for example, they would out build us the way we out built the Germans in WWII.
Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by whatshisface on Saturday March 01, 2025 @03:08AM (#43217136)
There is no such thing as a major non-nuclear conflict.
Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by bdangubic on Saturday March 01, 2025 @03:13AM (#43217167)
except the one happening last three years? :)
Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by rad_gruchalski on Saturday March 01, 2025 @04:27AM (#43217596)
If it was a non-nuclear conflict Russian would have been mowed down long time ago. The only reason why Russia is still in the game is defensive plans involving tactical nuclear weapons.
Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by herewulf on Saturday March 01, 2025 @05:52AM (#43218061)
Only one side has nuclear weapons so it doesn't count.
Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by impossiblefork on Saturday March 01, 2025 @06:47AM (#43218363)
Both sides do have nuclear weapons. Europe has France.

While there are no European armies in Ukraine, we are not neutral and thus in principle in some way at war with Russia. Presumably this is why our PM here in Sweden has said that we are neither at war nor not at war-- i.e. we're legally at war with Russia, but it's a sort of phony-war á la 1938.

Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by bdangubic on Saturday March 01, 2025 @11:09AM (#43220671)
counts even more if only one side has it
Re:Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting by impossiblefork on Saturday March 01, 2025 @05:32AM (#43217952)
I see it the precise other way around, essentially the position parodied by Yes Prime Minister with Hacker's Grand Design.

Basically, there's never a sensible reason to use the nukes. Let's suppose the EU invades Russia. We seize Pskov, should Russia use its nukes? Of course not, we will nuke them in turn. If we take Novgorod, should they use them? Of course not, it'll be nuclear annihilation. St Petersburg, Pskov, Novgorod? No. Moscow? No.

There's never any reason to fire the missiles, and if they respond with a limited nuclear strike, we just match it with one causing, let's say, 10% more damage and keep pushing.

As long as you have nukes yourself nukes are irrelevant and won't be used other than in a limited way even as your conventional forces march through your enemy's capital.