105
Yes it's 
propaganda and it is a heck a lot better than a multi billion arms sale presser that 
puts out in it's media.
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
105 points (100.0% liked)
videos
22686 readers
94 users here now
Breadtube if it didn't suck.
Post videos you genuinely enjoy and want to share, duh. Celebrate the diversity of interests shared by chapochatters by posting a deep dive into Venetian kelp farming, I dunno. Also media criticism, bite-sized versions of left-wing theory, all the stuff you expected. But I am curious about that kelp farming thing now that you mentioned it.
Low effort / spam videos might be removed, especially weeb content.
There is a cytube that you can paste videos into and watch with whoever happens to be around. It's open submission unless there's something important to commandeer it with at the time.
A weekly watch party happens every Saturday (Sunday down under), with video nominations Saturday-Monday, voting Monday-Thursday. See the pin for whatever stage it's currently in.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unlimited fusion energy threatens those whose power is built on other methods of providing energy.
Why would it lead to immediate nuclear war? Are there any pieces from American/Russian think tanks advocating for the death of billions if nuclear fusion is achieved in a commercial setting that I'm not aware of?
Almost all global power is built around oil, gas and coal. No petrodollar means no US power worldwide.
As soon as they believe the technology is real they will be. But it'll be more subtle than that, they're not going to outright say it's because of fusion energy they're going to say it's because the chinese are sneaky evil orientals and communism must be stopped.
While I think that war is possible as a last ditch attempt to stop a geopolitical dominance shift, it's a huge leap to say that "immediate nuclear war" is incoming.
Why? You acknowledge war is the last ditch they'd undertake and that means nuclear war if it's between the US and China, which it would be.
There is literally nothing to be gained from nuclear holocaust. I think it is extremely unlikely that the US will launch nuclear first strikes in response to something so relatively trivial as losing global relevance. The USSR completely collapsed, and they didn't set off any nukes either.
A conventional war (this is not necessarily a total war) does not automatically mean nuclear first strikes either. America does not respond to losing wars with nuclear first strikes. This is proven by historical example. They have been taking Ls left and right without setting off any nukes. The only time they have used nuclear weapons in an act of war was in Japan, and that was when they were winning.