Yes it’s some-controversy propaganda and it is a heck a lot better than a multi billion arms sale presser that amerikkka puts out in it’s media.

xi-lib-tears

  • waluigiblunts [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    While I think that war is possible as a last ditch attempt to stop a geopolitical dominance shift, it’s a huge leap to say that “immediate nuclear war” is incoming.

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      Why? You acknowledge war is the last ditch they’d undertake and that means nuclear war if it’s between the US and China, which it would be.

      • waluigiblunts [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        There is literally nothing to be gained from nuclear holocaust. I think it is extremely unlikely that the US will launch nuclear first strikes in response to something so relatively trivial as losing global relevance. The USSR completely collapsed, and they didn’t set off any nukes either.

        A conventional war (this is not necessarily a total war) does not automatically mean nuclear first strikes either. America does not respond to losing wars with nuclear first strikes. This is proven by historical example. They have been taking Ls left and right without setting off any nukes. The only time they have used nuclear weapons in an act of war was in Japan, and that was when they were winning.