USA and Israel have brought this upon themselves. After decades of regime change operations in the region (usually for the worse), it is clear that any state that doesn't pursue nuclear weapons isn't really an independent state.

Do you know who doesn't get regime-changed? North Korea.

▲

lwansbrough 3 hours ago | parent [-]

North Korea has the backing of the US' two most powerful adversaries, it was not a free pass.

The US can deploy a carrier strike group faster than any nation can build a nuclear weapon. And after seeing the hellfire unleashed on Iran, it is clear that pursuing nuclear weapons may not be the answer it once appeared to be.

Meanwhile, the so-called vassal states of the US - some of the richest countries on Earth mind you - haven't bothered to deploy nuclear weapons because we have no use for them.

▲

watwut 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Man, it seems much more like "must have" thing than it did just 2 years ago. And at that point it seemed more "must have" thing than it did 5 years ago. Trump does not mind nuclear proliferation anyway. If you pay Kushner enough, chances are they will even sell you a nuke.

> Meanwhile, the so-called vassal states of the US

I haven't seen that expression at all, ever. No one was called those state vasal states a year ago. And now, as fascists are in American government, it is becoming routine amount right wing. The logic seems to be that any former ally that does not start war with USA is a vassal or something.

> haven't bothered to deploy nuclear weapons because we have no use for them.

French recently announced change of doctrine, they will expand nuclear arsenal.

▲

lwansbrough 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Well I won't deny that. Nevertheless, countries who "play ball" seem to have it pretty good. Awfully high cost to pay to stick it to the man in charge.

▲

whycombigator 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Do what I say and I won't punch you, maybe.

▲

lwansbrough 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no alternative. Just be thankful it's not the Soviet Union.

▲

whycombigator 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There's always an alternative.

▲

lwansbrough 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Take it to the final form. It's game theory. The US is promoting system that enables a Nash equilibrium. By playing by the US' rules you empower yourself and you empower those around you. And the US takes a service fee for operating the market.

The alternative is trying to fight that, and if you're picking a fight with the strongest player, you're playing to lose.

▲

whycombigator 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree that's what the US used to do.

Now it's threatening to invade NATO allies, and other allies are deploying troops to deter that; Which makes perfect sense because you cannot appease authoritarians.

The US is in fairly rapid, self inflicted, decline at this point.

▲

lwansbrough an hour ago | parent [-]

I have faith that the Americans will right the ship. "Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else."

	▲	whycombigator an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They're just getting started on "everything else". My sense is this is an inflection point, and it may take decades to play out. At that point, the world will have irreversibly changed.

▲

MrBuddyCasino an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Take it to the final form. It's game theory. The US is promoting system that enables a Nash equilibrium. By playing by the US' rules you empower yourself and you empower those around you. And the US takes a service fee for operating the market.

This is what an empire, that is competently run, should do. The US is not an empire, and it is not competently run. It has no attributes in common with empires of history. It does not occupy foreign lands, it does not extract taxes, it does not (directly) control foreign governments. If anything, in this case, the US is under the control of a foreign government.