chat

8466 readers

217 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net

ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

Sulvy@hexbear.net

So, uh, are we gonna have a nuclear war? (hexbear.net)

submitted 9 months ago by LibsEatPoop@hexbear.net to c/chat@hexbear.net

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Cuz I wanna know if I need to create and finish a bucket list if that’s the case lmao.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The severity of going nuclear in this situation would prevent anyone but a bond villain with a death wish to even attempt it. It's a valuable thing to remind people.you are a nuclear power but it's fucking suicide to actually set one off. Nukes are more powerful when you don't use them. Once you do you can't threaten people with nuclear war and also are burdened with the apocalyptic reality of following through with it. If limited scale nuclear war were viable without setting off nuclear Armageddon we would have already seen tactical nukes dropped on Iraq.

[–] tactical_trans_karen@hexbear.net 1 points 9 months ago

Agreed. This is not mutually exclusive to WWIII though.