Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "Oppenheimer's warning lives on" video.

This channel really seems to be going fast down the sellout route off late. Between its choice of sponsors, alarmist or clickbait topics, chasing trends (this video counts as BOTH of those things), biases to cater to its likely largest audience base, repetition of content to milk the most out of what sells, etc. I used to like Caspian Report, but nowadays it seems to be going down just as RealLifeLore already did (though different from RLL, whose approach seems to be to just saturate every topic he can can cover and hope that quantity makes up for quality)
47
@stefandinu6389 The US being untouched is meaningless lol, as WW2 wasn't even taking place in North America. Russia faced the worst of WW2, and emerged a superpower by the end. Europe meanwhile saw itself collapse from it despite having a globe spanning empire to back it up. The US just sat pretty across the ocean.
19
@dinodudedanny6324 You're still the only ones who've ever done it. But worst of all is how much Americans warn about other countries being dangerous nuclear actors when they haven't done anything, while pretending they're responsible despite still being the only ones who ever have used it. You want people to stop pointing fingers at you, then stop pointing fingers are everyone else. But that seems to be beyond you.
14
It's reasonably neutral at least. Unlike most other such warnings that come from politically charged sources, the Bulletin has tried to maintain its role as a neutral group of concerned scientists. It is still just an opinion, but it's an opinion from a more trustworthy source than most others out there.
10
@Lawrence_L1 It is present, albeit only from one side. Russia and China see it as a defensive conflict against hegemony, while Europe sees it as defensive against Russia and east Asia against China. The ideology exists in the last big player - America, who paints is as some kind of holy crusade by 'democracies against dictatorships', never mind how hypocritical that sounds given their own foreign policy history and practice
7
First of all, Ukraine did NOT have usable nukes. Moscow had the control mechanism, so Ukrainian nukes were just risky hunks of metal. Secondly, China has had nukes for decades and has actually been a very stable nuclear actor over that time. Thirdly Israel is literally an illegal nuclear actor, so hardly a poster child for good nuclear behaviour. Fourthly, the US abandoned the principle of MAD 2 decades ago, with Bush pulling out of anti ballistic missile agreements and ever since the US has sought to try to make itself untouchable - unsurprisingly her rivals responded by stepping up efforts to ensure she never succeeded. While most of the world learned to accept the possibility that they could be attacked, America as sole superpower found that too affronting and so actually made the world LESS safe in its so far futile quest to achieve absolute invincibility.
6
@nathangamble125 This one is fine. But most of his other videos have sponsored by scams like Masterworks or Established Titles, or garbage monetization games like Conflict of Nations (whose sponsorship tbf is sometimes hilarious given the topic of the video in question). In fact I'm surprised that this one isn't sponsored by the latter. You'll find a lot of his vids have comments under them criticizing the sponsor he used.
5
@altrag You didn't mention the most volatile nuclear nation of them all, surrounding by enemies and not even willing to admit to having nukes - Israel.
4
The US abandoned that principle 2 decades ago, with Bush pulling out of anti ballistic missile agreements and ever since the US has sought to try to make itself untouchable - unsurprisingly her rivals responded by stepping up efforts to ensure she never succeeded. While most of the world learned to accept the possibility that they could be attacked, America as sole superpower found that too affronting and so actually made the world LESS safe in its futile quest to achieve absolute invincibility.
3
@lucasharvey8990 These zingers are almost never his words. They're quotes from other people who he doesn't credit.
3
@jerichostevens2711 "What they did in China alone provides sufficient 'moral' ground" - it provides no moral ground to you. That is for China to decide. You don't get to use China's suffering as an excuse to conveniently serve your own goals. You didn't do it for China, just as you didn't invade Afghanistan to save women or Iraq to spread freedom. Those are all excuses to justify your move.
3
@HedgehogZone Lol no! Do you know how many would-be conquerors have thought that and tried it, only to be utterly ruined in the attempt? Hell Russia GREW from some of their overconfident invasion follies. You want to conquer Russia? Have fun trying to resurrect Genghis Khan, and then try to convince yourself it was a good idea.
2
@MionMikan They are rational, and to this day the only one to have ever used nukes on people is America. Rationality means they respond to THEIR circumstances, not yours. It is perfectly rational to lash out if you're being surrounded and undermined.
2
They're doing the same with China, and will similarly pretend 'containment' is somehow an innocent thing to do, when China finally has enough and decides to try to break out of the cage the US is putting around it.
2
@delfinenteddyson9865 It doesn't become untrue by repeatedly denying it either.
2
@robertsaget9697 LESS. Since WW2 the US has fought in more wars than any other nation (including Russia). Even China, which has disputes with nearly all its neighbours, has barely gone to war. And here's the real kicker - America goes to war far away, and is incredibly safe at home. Do you realize how weird that is?! Firstly almost all wars all across the world and all through history have been local i.e. nations fight close to home, mostly their neighbour. Almost all exceptions are just America and the former colonial powers (for a non-western example see the Chola war against Srivijaya, which was an aberration from the norm in India). Even Russia's wars tend to be on her borders. War just doesn't make much sense far away most of the time. Especially when you're not trying to annex territory, which is often the case with modern wars (makes more sense to just install a friendly govt.). Secondly America is safe behind two giant oceans with only two weak neighbours on either pole, and is blessed with plenty of resources at home. A nation like that would be expected to be like Canada. Instead it outspends the next 10 nations combined on its military, and has hundreds of bases abroad. This makes little sense given its context, yet it does it anyway. China is the second big spender (which makes more sense given it's threatened by the biggest spender), BUT still has barely any distant military bases and hasn't fought a war abroad since 1979 - and even that war was with its neighbour (who the US had fought a war with just prior). Thirdly you're making the classic mistake of a false dichotomy. Even China and Russia speak of a multipolar world order, not replacing one hegemon with another as they don't expect to be able to do that. Neither does anyone else expect them to be able to. So there is no choosing America or China or Russia or whoever else. The world does not have to be beholden to one power. You think of every nation as the same as America, just bad for not being democratic. What you don't appreciate is how deeply weird America is. The nation should not be how it is, yet it is. Most nations aren't like the US. China being powerful is generally bad for Vietnam, but not Brazil. Russia being strong is bad for Ukraine, but not South Africa. Only the US somehow finds excuses to impose itself across the world.
2
@robertsaget9697 And here you compound your list of dumb arguments. First false dichotomy, and now strawman.
2
@caesarsalad1170 I'm the only one actually making arguments bub, based on actual history. He's making claims off of presumption and bias.
2
@robertsaget9697 "war is peace" - Nah bro, war is 'freedom and democracy'. Oh wait, that was your line. 😅🙃
2
@MacTac141 "The nuclear taboo didn’t really start until the 1950’s with the idea of MAD coming" - good to know the only thing holding America back from nuking cities is fear of retaliation. What a nice nation!
2
@JadeoftheGlade I didn't thank you bub, and you guys are arrogantly presumptuous for pretending as such. Go preach Americana to the original Americans you decimated.
2
@Jordanthecool7 "They didn’t use it again since 1945" - meanwhile everyone else hasn't used them ever, and they've been in wars since then too. You're still two up.
2
@altrag Fair enough.👍👌
2
@jasc4364 Keep dreaming. Russia has been invaded conventionally - it ended in disaster every time.
1
@mr.mercury4247 Those incidents were during peacetime, not open war. Don't tempt fate by relying on luck during war. And the way things are heading nowadays, war looks likely to be coming.
1
@MerryMerryGold You can't join NATO if NATO doesn't accept you. And Russia was told NATO would hold off on accepting new members. It didn't, even before any war in Ukraine happened. And you're now seeing the same happening with China, with the same result expected which you people will blame on China even as you continue to 'innocently' surround her. Meanwhile you'll pretend the US was totally justified in all the shit it's put poor Cuba through when they faced the same thing. Fyi Cuba also voluntarily invited the Russians in, not that America cared. They've brutally punished that nation ever since for daring to do it.
1
Not happening. There was already a good precursor to the idea that could've set the stage for such an agreement - the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, which sought to ensure parity between the major nuclear powers by ensuring their deterrence effect remained as development of defensive countermeasures was curtailed. George Bush pulled the US out of it in 2002, resulting in a new arms race as the US' rivals sought to ensure they had a credible threat against America. And it's much cheaper for them.
1
@lordpepe2927 Stalin was the most ruthless leader, as was Mao. No nukes were used. This is just self-serving moralism to try to pretend the only nation to have ever nuked people is somehow the restrained one.
1
@colastineregina7730 They probably do, but I doubt those biases are anywhere near as strong as most other institutions that may put out these kinds of things instead.
1
@trihard7323 If US doesn't want to see war then maybe they shouldn't be creating the conditions for it for the last 30 years.
1
@conservativedemocracyenjoyer That's what you keep telling yourselves to justify it, which is no different from what the Russians or any other nation would tell themselves to justify what they do. Also wording is funny - you like to pretend you were being smart, plenty of others would just see it as cowardice.
1
Ironically nukes were first invented by - and have only ever been used by - a democracy. But sure, let's worry about what autocrats will do and pretend democracy is some sort of magic straitjacket that precludes their use
1
@loonowolf2160 Lmao! It's so ironic how the very people who love screeching 'whataboutism' whenever people bring up the US in response to criticism of Russia, themselves resort to whataboutism as soon as the shoe is on the other foot. 😏
1
@cmdkaboom Lmao! It's so ironic how the very people who love screeching 'whataboutism' whenever people bring up the US in response to criticism of Russia, themselves resort to whataboutism as soon as the shoe is on the other foot. 😏
1
@robertsaget9697 "not being under the thumb of the hegemon" - lmao, what world do you live in?! 😅
1
@robertsaget9697 You work off of assumptions, I work off of history. The US' last war ended in 2021, China's in 1979. Hell even that 1979 war was with a nation the US had just fought a war with - China's war had 60k losses, the US' war had 3 million. Your own record damns you, so YOU need meds. Also classic false dichotomy tactic.
1
@robertsaget9697 Lol you people are hilarious! 🤣Apparently you somehow believe it's okay to go to war so long as you don't annex territory. Lmao! In that case Russia offered not to attack Ukraine before the war. They made a peace offer - not to Ukraine, but to YOU i.e. NATO. Same thing they've been asking for over 30 years now. As usual NATO dismissed it, thus war. You had the opportunity for peace with no land lost, you chose your hegemony over it. In fact Russia didn't even try to annex land from Ukraine before 2014, until the revolution that they blame on you. They were fine with Ukraine until it switched sides to you. Cos land is passe. You don't need to annex land, and nor do they. It's much more of a hassle. Better to just put in place a 'friendly govt' instead and boom, you've got the benefits of annexation without the headaches of actually having to manage that territory. Russia understood that too, which is why Ukraine was only attacked after it became an unfriendly govt. As for China, it just makes you look terrible. China's last war was in 1979, yours was in 2021. It was also with Vietnam, and had about 60k casualties between both sides. Prior to that YOU were at war with Vietnam, leaving over 3 million dead in your wake. And just as with Russia, you have the option for peace with China too in regards to the Taiwan issue. For well over half a century they've left that claim alone. The current tensions date to 2017. Nothing changed in China then (Xi came to power in 2012), it changed in the US - Trump came to power and launched an anti-China crusade that has since become standard US foreign policy even after he left office. Again you have the option to back off to maintain peace, and again you choose to prize your hegemonic presence over that path. Ironic considering how the US responded to its own version of Taiwan - Cuba. For the 'crime' of being friendly with the enemy, it was blockaded, embargoed, abortively invaded and finally sanctioned for over half a century now against near universal global condemnation. By contrast, Taiwan is not only free to trade with anyone, but their largest trade partner is, ironically, China. No bub, you go war for the flimsiest of reasons. Border conflicts aren't a rarity in history, they're the norm. Almost all wars ever have been with neighbours. Almost all the exceptions - wars with far away nations, including ones where territory isn't being claimed - are from you and the former colonial powers. That isn't a good thing. Your wars make far less sense than those of either Russia or China, and yet you still find reasons to do them. A nation like the US, with all its resources and geographic security, would be expected to be like Canada. Instead, it's the US. What a joke!
1
@robertsaget9697 No. I don't blame my coffee on the US. It gets a pass on that. 😌
1
@robertsaget9697 You made it about territory, I merely pointed out how territory is a weak excuse. Besides one has lost territory since 1945, while the other has remained largely static, so that was a dumb argument to begin with. As for hegemony, all you're doing is showing how blinkered and narrow your vision is. Even their own rhetoric is all about a multipolar world order, so ironically they have more of an imagination than the land of the free that's only able to think in absolute 'us or them' terms. Unsurprising, given your own president used the 'with us or against us' fallacy when launching your last two wars. Meanwhile, while you obsess over how their internal politics works, you've still had the more aggressive external foreign policy than them - both invading and sanctioning far more countries than either of them. It's telling that you think being a democracy magically gives you a free pass to do as you wish. Not to mention that the rest of the world doesn't even get a say in the US' democracy, but still has to deal with the shit its govt. decides to pursue. If you want to pretend to be the world policeman, a role no one gave you but you took over anyway, you still lack legitimacy as almost none of your 'subjects' gets to decide on your laws. You just trample over theirs. In that sense you aren't a democracy, not for the world anyway. You're a democracy internally but unaccountable to the rest of the world. Neither China nor Russia has that problem as they aren't claiming to be world police. They're not trying to replace you, they're just trying to DISplace you from their backyard. The world hasn't had a global policeman for most of history and doesn't need one, and given the horrible record of US policing even at home, you're not qualified to be it. This isn't their world, but it isn't your world either. They don't claim it is, but you certainly like to pretend it is.
1
In that case Iran should be allowed to have nukes. They have good reason to have it too, as they already face threats from both in the region and from outside of it. And two of those threats - the US and Israel - have nukes of their own.
1
@bloodfiredrake7259 Ironically Trump is the only president in the last couple decades who didn't see a war start on his watch. On the contrary he pushed to end the ones his predecessors left him with. Trump is safer precisely because he isn't moral. Moralism has been used to justify all the wars both his predecessors and his successor have gotten America into. Every war needs a cause, and Trump sucks at that. The 'good guys' as they pretend to be are the ones who keep inventing reasons to go on crusade to sell to the US public. Trump just wants to wheel and deal, which actually helps to avoid war. Machiavelli would have approved, even if he'd prefer Trump be more subtle about it.
1