I wish this was an inflated title but no, he really said this.
America, you need to get rid of this asshole ASAP.
Source: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115460423936412555
Thanks @notarobot@lemmy.zip
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
423 points (98.8% liked)
politics
26226 readers
5129 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
counts vary on how you count mirv payloads, ab's reliability of information
Why would any country need that many? I mean having any is stupid because it will always end in mutually assured destruction but with that many, you could kill us all if you were on the verge of one hitting you.
Stupid, legacy calculus but calculus none the less. During the Cold war both sides recognized that a direct or near direct hit on a launch site could potentially negate any chance for retribution or follow up attacks in an otherwise limited/not all out scenario. So they counted the delivery mechanism they could identify, did some multiplication to account for misses and defenses and came up with a number. Then the other side noticed the build up, comes up with same general calculus and runs the same general math to decide how many they need. And this the goes back and forth for decades where each side is building up counters to their rivals counters. And the numbers we have now are actually a reduction from the peak of the Cold war build up.
thankfully we at least halted that trend for a while with early warning systems: no longer launch all your nukes and you might take out all of theirs… launch all your nukes and by the time they arrive the retaliatory ICBMS will be 5min from hitting their own targets; likely right on top of you… launch an ICBM and you’re fucked
It is mutually-assured destruction. The idea is that there are enough nukes to end all life on earth. Because if there are that many nukes, then nobody would ever use them.
That’s how the US and USSR came up with these figures when they were disarming at the end of the Cold War.
does anyone know how many of those are operational?
No, and we probably never will. The Russian government certainly doesn't. When the invasion of Ukraine proper started, a lot of their equipment failed or was missing, and the military wasn't aware. It had been sold off or just not maintained by the people in charge of it.
I'm certain the same thing has happened with the nuclear arsenal. The only time it will be used is if you already lost, so what's the point in spending money on keeping it operational over just having the appearance of it being operational. Your enemy can't know the difference (especially if you don't) and it'd be bad to bet on it failing, so it serves exactly the same purpose regardless.
i believe (dont know) that civilans will never learn the actuals.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Nuclear Notebook series) i read/summarize these and have an unfounded belief they have as good a pulse as we're likely to get.