Stein: Clinton Will Lead Us To Nuclear War...

[seer]

Perhaps

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...aiting-happen/

[seanD]

It's Breibart, therefore anything Stein may have said is null and void.

[guacamole]

It's Stein. Therefore anything Stein said is null and void.

[seanD]

Hillary made it perfectly clear that she's willing to go to war with a country that engages in cyber attacks (obviously referencing Russia even though the evidence they were involved in hacking DNC is flimsy in spite of her insistence to the contrary). So, she's essentially willing to engage in a nuclear war with a country she believes hacked us in spite of evidence being flimsy. She's referred to Putin as Hitler. She was behind the Iraq war (indirectly), the Libyan war, and the utter mess in Syria. She's such a bloodlusting ghoul that she laughed at the thought of a world leader getting tortured and killed on video and thousands of people dying in the process. The warmongering neoconservatives love her (I wonder why). She openly supports a no-fly zone in Syria, which would lead to war with Russia. The assumption she'll lead us to a nuclear conflict is probably one of the most logical and rational assumptions one could make here.

[Leonhard]

Definitely one of the reasons I don't like Hillary. Though the risk of nuclear war, is on Putin. He threatened bombing ukraine with one. Then again he threatens to do that quite often, and he hasn't made a serious threat of it. Don't see why he should. He'd lose everything.

[Jaecp]

Definitely one of the reasons I don't like Hillary. Though the risk of nuclear war, is on Putin. He threatened bombing ukraine with one. Then again he threatens to do that quite often, and he hasn't made a serious threat of it. Don't see why he should. He'd lose everything.

Maskirovka is a beautiful thing

[seanD]

Definitely one of the reasons I don't like Hillary. Though the risk of nuclear war, is on Putin. He threatened bombing ukraine with one. Then again he threatens to do that quite often, and he hasn't made a serious threat of it. Don't see why he should. He'd lose everything.

If two nuclear superpowers go to blows, it's going to eventually lead to a nuclear conflict. The weapons today are too destructive for one or the other side to concede defeat in a peaceful manner. It's going to be to the total death of one of the countries, and no country is going to allow its military to be utterly wiped out without pushing the button at that point.

[Jaecp]

We managed to go through an entire Cold War without lighting up with Russia directly. There's no particular reason to think now is any different.

[seanD]

Correct, because we never went to physical blows. I also don't recall the circumstances being remotely the same, much less the leaders in charge.

[Jaecp]

We won't go to physical blows now. There isn't an Iron Curtain this time around. Hillary can just talk to Putin on the phone and tell him whats what.

[seanD]

Depends on whether Hillary's rhetoric is empty or not. She could be talking tough because she feels the need to do so to prove she's tough in spite of her geneder (though that's sort of a weird campaign strategy for a Democrat), or she could be a bloodlusting psychopath that finds world leaders getting killed on video funny. Who knows.

[One Bad Pig]

Hillary can just talk to Putin on the phone and tell him whats what.

[Carrikature]

If two nuclear superpowers go to blows, it's going to eventually lead to a nuclear conflict. The weapons today are too destructive for one or the other side to concede defeat in a peaceful manner. It's going to be to the total death of one of the countries, and no country is going to allow its military to be utterly wiped out without pushing the button at that point.

There are way too many assumptions here, not least that "total death" and "utterly wiped out" are even achievable goals. Add in there defense against such threats is in place.

[Jaecp]

There are way too many assumptions here, not least that "total death" and "utterly wiped out" are even achievable goals. Add in there defense against such threats is in place.

Right, like, MAD isn't exactly the best, but it's not like Russia wants a shooting war with the US any more than we do and they are well aware of the gaps between our first strike capabilities.

[seanD]

There are way too many assumptions here, not least that "total death" and "utterly wiped out" are even achievable goals. Add in there defense against such threats is in place.

Dude, it was hyperbole for a terrible unimaginable situation. A country can't die for petesake. I have to spell that out for you? The point was that I doubt a superpower will sit back and watch its military devastated by the destructive weapons we have today without resorting to desperate means, particularly when it has the means to strike back with equal or greater devastating results. We're in a completely different era than conflicts of the past.