in

The Recklessness of the Biden Administration

In this clip from Part Of The Problem # 891 ( https://youtu.be/jkLSQIrqUSo ) Dave and Scott Horton discuss the issue of mutual destruction.

Twitter:

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith

https://www.instagram.com/bmackayisright

Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/theproblemd

https://www.instagram.com/bmackayisright

Subscribe On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/DSmithcomic

Buy Daves Album : Dave Smith Libertas – https://bit.ly/2Nq5seM

Dave Smith and Robbie The Fire Bernstein bring you the latest in Politics three times a week, with the promise of bonus episodes! Libertarian Philosophy mixed with a sense of humor, POTP is one of the leading voices in libertarianism.

Dave Smith is a New York based stand-up comedian, radio personality, and political commentator. Dave can be seen regularly on “The Greg Gutfeld Show” and “Red Eye” on Fox News, as well as “Kennedy” on Fox Business Network. In 2013 Dave was featured as one of the New Faces at the prestigious Just For Laughs Comedy Festival in Montreal. He was also a featured performer on the New York Comedy Festival’s “New York’s Funniest” showcase in 2014 and 2015. Dave’s outlet for his social commentary is his podcast, “Part of the Problem,” which is available on iTunes. Dave is also co-host of “The Legion of Skanks” podcast, available on the GaS Digital Network.

Written by Dave Smith

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Gas down, commodity prices down, durable goods prices down, inflation expectations down, inflation lower than expected, stock market up big. These are some pretty great achievements considering where the economy was when Biden got in

  2. Whats scary isn't the unstable head of state or military leader that chooses to turn a conflict nuclear, whats scary is the person who is given faulty information that a nuclear strike has been launched against them. All it takes is ONE MISTAKE. We've come dangerously close to that scenario multiple times in the past, and thankfully there have been people who have said no to launching the retaliatory strike. But what happens if that person is having a bad day? What happens if their wife left them, turned the kids against them, took half their shit and they're just out of fucks to give? What happens if instead of there being some detail that makes them question whether the attack is real, the info looks completely solid and they have no reason to doubt its validity? What happens if they are an actual high functioning clinical sociopath/psychopath who doesn't have the kind of empathy necessary to feel guilt or shame about launching the retaliatory strike?

    It's a wonder that it hasn't happened yet, and we take it for granted every single day.

  3. You know how you describe the Pakistani military the colonels had the authority to drop a bomb. Not the generals back at headquarters. Yeah that's a horrible thing to do. However, I think we would be better off if we gave the authority our col. on the ground rather than people at the White House or this administration or any administration. Especially in current times. Because us on the ground well it was me before second Ranger battalion. I don't care if it is the company Commander to the battalion Commander whatever. We all knew s*** rolled downhill and it was a political b***** once you got passed full bird colonel. So we have to deal with a lot of b***** but I would have more faith if I was on the ground at the door kicking level or the command and control on the local battlefield level. If we had the authority control of those weapons. Because we wouldn't pull it we wouldn't pull the trigger I mean you might have your occasional f**** weirdo but then he would get there would be a mutiny and we would probably kill him. I'm just saying how it would be. What happens on the battlefield you know what I mean it's almost like Vegas

  4. Point of order: Hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation and communication were produced in the lead-up to the decision to use nuclear bombs against Japan. There was no "Yee-haw let's jes' do it it's just another bomb" moment that led to that action. Hundreds of mean near the top argued for years, giving their arguments to the dozens of men at the top, their worries and recommendations. You can disagree with their choice in the end, but it's silly to try and say that it wasn't very carefully and seriously considered.

  5. The problem with A-bombs is, you cannot un-invent them. Just as you cannot un-invent the internet or 3-d printing. Once the technology exists, the genie is out of the bottle.

  6. "On 26 September 1983, during the Cold War, the nuclear early-warning radar of the Soviet Union reported the launch of one intercontinental ballistic missile with four more missiles behind it, from bases in the United States. These missile attack warnings were suspected to be false alarms by Stanislav Petrov, an officer of the Soviet Air Defence Forces on duty at the command center of the early-warning system. He decided to wait for corroborating evidence—of which none arrived—rather than immediately relaying the warning up the chain-of-command. This decision is seen as having prevented a retaliatory nuclear attack against the United States and its NATO allies, which would likely have resulted in an escalation to a full-scale nuclear war. Investigation of the satellite warning system later determined that the system had indeed malfunctioned."

    This is why escalating tensions between the U.S. and Russia is so goddamn dangerous. It's not going to be an order given to launch a first strike that will kick off nuclear war, it's going to be an out of control error during a time of heightened tension when each side has their finger hovering over the big red button "just in case."

  7. Saying "that doesn't count all the times we ALMOST destroyed mankind with nukes" is like saying "I'm a profitable poker player, if not for all those times I almost won, but didn't".

    The empirical result of nukes has been an absence of multitudes of human corpses, the likes of which we saw in WW1 and WW2, by the tens and hundreds of millions. We have lost less and less troops as a trend in war after war. If you look at it per year at war, it's even more clear.

    If the empirical result used to be hundreds of millions dead in world war, and the result now is tens of thousands over 10 years or more…then the conclusion you draw is NOT a counterfactual like "that doesn't count all the times we ALMOST destroyed mankind with nukes." That's intuitive, but it's not logical.

    The conclusion you should draw is twofold:

    1. All those "ALMOST" moments have now, by game theory math, turned into "almost nevers".

    2. Even if a madman uses nukes, it's unlikely to destroy all of mankind unless it's two huge land empires. It might be a global catastrophe/problem, but not existential, most likely. It was far more likely when the USSR had more territory for us to aim at. Now many of those former targets are "allies". So, EVEN IF a madman every 50 years uses the things, the death toll, albeit high and maybe in the millions, will pale in comparison to the lives saved in the meantime (the 49 year gap where they weren't used, and massive amounts of troops were NOT thrown into a world war meat grinder, yet again, due to the threat in game theory math; mutually assured destruction).

    Look, it's why guns work to deter criminals. If you understand that, interpolate the stats for knives, blunt objects, fist fights, male vs female, male vs male, assailant is aware of the potential victim's armaments, or they aren't privy to the info about their arms at all (concealed vs open carry), etc. The extrapolate for nukes. It's all the same math, with different levels of deterrent based on risk to the initiator of the problem.

    I get the anti-nuke thing…but at some point, the empirical evidence, the logic of the math, speaks for itself.

  8. The whole argument presented here is completely dishonest. It blatantly ignores the actual argument that pro-nuclear-deterrence people make. Of course agents of the state don’t give a damn about ordinary people. The pro-nuclear-deterrence argument doesn’t assert that they do. It only holds that they give a damn about themselves. The reason why no politician would start a nuclear war is that, if he did, he would almost certainly die in it as well. Even if he managed to escape to a nuclear bunker in time, you need large numbers of people to be alive in order to have a tax farm. It just wouldn’t be in any politician’s self-interest to kill off most of the population. At no point is altruism a factor here.

  9. The key here is that the USA is using intel to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Basically, the Ukrainians know where every single tank is and that is why they are doing OK. The USA (we) are putting the Russians in this position of either fighting the USA, using nuclear weapons, or losing the war. That is the position Biden is putting us in.

  10. How much damage can they do in one term…? Enough to never get back again. Someone is using Biden to get it done… and he’s so old he’ll never have to answer for it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Loading…

0