Spinaccio t1_iwee6tk wrote

Did this last summer. For part of the wall that is a storage closet we used primer and regular interior paint, looks fine. For the more finished area we used plaster weld, skim coated with compound, sanded, then primer and paint. Came out great, looks like the Sheetrock walls.


Spinaccio t1_iu6vo0v wrote

The US was never been invaded from the time it became a nation, without nukes. North Korea forced an end to the war they arguably started with help from the CCCP, and were not invaded afterwards, again without a nuclear deterrent. European politics are…historically complex and putting a finger one one element- nuclear weapons- as the core reason for post WW2 stability is overly simplistic.

Saying that nuclear weapons “only need to be in working order” is another oversimplification. Maintaining and protecting a nuclear arsenal requires not only huge amounts of money, educating people to be qualified to do so, maintaining a security apparatus to protect that arsenal, but also a system to develop, evaluate and effect upgrades to aging systems. Let’s not leave out the incidental costs of having these weapons around, like poisoning of individuals and communities, which also need to be considered in a full accounting. If you leave out the most important costs and only list “there might be a monster under my bed…someday”, that’s not a valid cost benefit analysis.


Spinaccio t1_iu6rkho wrote

Actually, logically no sane nation should want to build a nuclear arsenal. I’ve never seen a comprehensive cost analysis, but from r&d, testing, implementation, security, cleanup, and many costs I haven’t thought of, the nuclear powers have to have spent countless trillions on the game of my dick is bigger than yours, realizing too late they can’t use them. Given a clear picture of how badly nuclear weapons would hobble your country’s progress with no benefit that good diplomacy could achieve, the cost benefit analysis seems pretty obvious to me.

I Am Not A Nuclear Weapons Expert.