The U.S. will very likely fight a 3-front war against Russia, China and Iran, Palantir’s Alex Karp says
The U.S. will very likely fight a 3-front war against Russia, China and Iran, Palantir’s Alex Karp says
"The president needs to tell them if you cross these lines, this is what we’re going to do, and you have to then enforce it."
I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might
Anyway, good luck on that three front war
Let's take a look at a comprehensive list of countries that have used nukes against others:
🇺🇲
Based on this, we conclude that the US is less likely to use nukes against others. I'm very smart
Not only that but the US spent the entirety of the Cold War trying to either use nukes again or find some way to deploy nukes to every soldier and conflict possible, with everything from nuclear demolition charges to artillery shells
Given their way the US would arm every soldier with a nuclear rifle if they could
the US deployed backpack-sized nuclear weapons to Europe for decades as part of a stay-behind Gladio type operation, whose intent was to detonate nukes guerilla style in a Soviet-overrun Europe
The Littlest Boy | Foreign Policy
linking an archive because this article has suspiciously been removed from FP's website, just loads a blank page.
Let's also consider the stances of those countries on a nuclear first strike:
- China: Unambiguous "No First Use", with no exceptions
- Iran: Doesn't even have nukes and afaik has been cleared of ever trying to do so by international inspectors
- Russia: Reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if WMD are deployed against itself or its allies or if the very existence of the state is threatened with conventional warfare
- The US: Still has full first use.
For fun, the other countries with nukes:
- The UK: Has openly stated they will use nukes in a pre-emptive strike, officially has no stance on a "No First Use" policy in order to "keep its enemies guessing"
- Israel: Doesn't have nukes (winkwinknudgenudge) but would 300% use them if they did
- India: No first use against states without nukes
- Pakistan: Full first use.
- North Korea: First use if they get attacked
the projection is off the charts
Man who earns living from defense spending spreads baseless fears of coming war
New talking point to get bigger defense contracts just dropped. And he has another one:
"I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might," he added. "Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think."
Karp continued: "In fact, given that we have parity technologically but we don’t have parity morally, they have a huge advantage."
Imagine thinking the US has the moral high ground, and that having the moral high ground is a disadvantage.
given that we have parity technologically
oh like hypersonic missiles, right
He claims the West is too moral to effectively fight these opponents, who would use unscrupulous means.
Hahaha what the fuck?
It’s just pure vibes. The Middle Eastern wars never happened. Or maybe actually it was China that did all that.
The US wouldn’t stand a chance against all three at once. Delusional moron.
I recently read a super weird essay written in
20172007 by the other Palantir founder, Peter Thiel, called 'The Straussian Moment' - and it's wild how they're still talking about some of the exact same things.For anyone wanting insight into the particular brand of fascism coming out of silicon valley these days, it's worth a read.
Losing two wars simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't good enough, we need to lose three instead
That one scene from Office Space where he asks his neighbor what his dream is but he says, "Shit man, losing three wars at the same time"
Eh, they accomplished their objectives (enriching the MIC and oil companies). I don't really consider that a loss.
Short term success vs long term losses. Yeah they made some profits during the war, but they would have preferred these countries to be allied so they can siphon more off over time
the U.S. is unable to dictate terms to Yemen but this dullard thinks it can fight two nuclear-armed states (both of which have demonstrably better production capacity) and a major regional power all at the same time
So this is why you need my perpetual global spyware!
Select CEO mode
- Beg Mode - your CEO will lobby and harangue Government for free money the public purse.
- Sell Mode - your CEO will make wild “I am the main character “ predictions about the future, on randomly selected topics, no qualifications are required
- Power off
Three front wars famously go well for empires.
Yeah, every time an empire has been in major decline, they've just fought a massive war with all of their biggest enemies simultaneously and it just works out fine for them.
"The president needs to tell them if you cross these lines, this is what we’re going to do, and you have to then enforce it."
has entered the chatI mean, that's what he's doing, what with all the weapons and financial support.
If you cross this line, I'll tell you what I'll do! I'll give you more weapons!
Palantir is CIA funded. I believe wholeheartedly that they will a try to start up a new cold war..
Start? We're 5+ years in, mate
It came from In-q-tel so it's basically 100% CIA
Companies that are controlled by the CIA can't help but say dumb shit. Look at notepad++ and Proton as two examples.What have I missed about both of them?
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
"You can trust me, I spy on everything" -Spyguy McSubterfuge working for Clandestine Inc.
that seems to be the plan... the empire is gonna fall hard and fast
Death to America
