AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j9h3fy8 wrote

>They do care about their citizens.

Omg, you've been in a coma for the last year and just woke up. Let me fill you in on what's been happening to fighting age men in Russia and how little the oligarchs in charge of the country care about the people in it. Lol. What a joke.

>There would be consequences for their use which is why they cannot use them.

What are these great consequences that would punish Russia for using nukes, but not deter them from using in the first place?

>Us nuking multiple of their cities is not "great for them".

No of course it's not great. I meant the sarcastic kind of great. Again, because more than they care about a few cities, they care about their position as a world power. If they use them, they obviously think it will lead to a better position for Russia, despite what would happen to a few of their cities.

>There is zero chance we can prevent them from launching and I give it around a 2% chance to shoot down any incoming nuke. They are mirvs with decoys built to saturate defenses.

You don't know the limits of our defensive systems and I don't either. That's why I said I assume.

>Once again, none of this can be used because of MAD. Even if Putin gives the orders I highly doubt they would be followed as it's MADness.

Perimeter is automatic (that means it doesn't need an order).


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j9gyehe wrote

No matter of suicide.

Russia can use a limited number of nukes without fear of nuclear reprisal, in my opinion, because Russia doesn't care if tens of millions of its citizens die, so they get some tactical nuclear first strikes as freebies.

The reprisal by the west is the matter of suicide. Russia has the Perimeter dead hand deterrent system, by which a full scale nuclear attack on Russia, whether retaliatory or first-strike, triggers an automated full scale response.

So if Russia nukes Kiev to reverse the tide in Ukraine, and the west responds by nuking a couple Russian cities, that's great for Russia because they get to keep Ukraine and they brought the west to heel. If the west retaliates, it will only be a limited strike, which, again, Russia will readily accept, if it gets it something as prized as Ukraine.

There is zero chance Russia launches a first strike against the continental US. Russia likes to say it has the world's most advanced nuclear delivery system, with its hypersonic nuclear cluster bombs, but that's useless against the US unless Russia could get all our subs in one fell swoop, too, which it can't.

I assume the US has cyber warfare and space weaponry at its disposal that could prevent Russia from launching or that could neutralize incoming missiles, hypersonic or not. Obviously such capabilities are top secret and I'm only speculating.


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j9fkmv4 wrote

Hosmer is definitely better. It's sweet without any sugary syrupy texture because it's bottled in the land of swift running waters (the Willimantic River), which imbues every bottle with a sweet bite that you can only get from lead contamination.

Jk jk. The Willimantic River is actually pretty clean, compared to, say, the Naugatuck or Quinnipiac.


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j92nhyo wrote

What right, this one?

Louisiana Supreme Court 1856:

>[The Second Amendment] was never intended to prevent the individual States from adopting such measures of police as might be necessary, in order to protect the orderly and well disposed citizens from the treacherous use of weapons not even designed for any purpose of public defence, and used most frequently by evil-disposed men who seek an advantage over their antagonists, in the disturbances and breaches of the peace which they are prone to provoke.

North Carolina Supreme Court 1843:

>there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort[,] a gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements--as a part of his dress--and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.

South Carolina Grand Jury 1879:

>It is apparent to every good citizen and man of sense, that any gentleman would blush and feel deeply ashamed to be caught parading the streets on a public occasion, or, for the matter of that, on a private occasion, with a revolver swinging around his neck like a powder horn, or sticking vulgarly and threateningly out of his hip pocket, making him the picture of a pirate.

Tennessee Supreme Court 1840:

>A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

That's why Chief Justice Warren Burger was spot on in his opinion of gun lobbyists and extremist conservatives (and corrupt justices like Scalia, etc.,), with their deliberate perversion of the legal and historical facts of the Second Amendment:

>“A fraud on the American public.”


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j92jgs5 wrote

Just thinking of all those parents I hear about every year whose kid goes over to someone else's house and then has to face the catastrophe of learning their kid was let by some other dumbfuck parent to play with a gun and is now dead.

Just happened the other day in Florida, a three year old shot himself in the face.