this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
176 points (90.7% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2434 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The recent news about possible Russian space nukes reminds us that we live in a very insecure world. That is why perhaps none of Donald Trump’s four criminal cases is more troubling than the federal prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith for mishandling classified documents. Unfortunately, the judge handling the case, Aileen Cannon—a last-minute appointment rushed through in the waning days of the Trump administration—has proved herself to be by far the worst of the jurists overseeing these momentous cases. Her decisions during the investigative phase of the case strayed wildly from precedent, leading to brutal reversals by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Now Smith appears to be preparing to ask that body to overturn at least one and possibly two of her decisions. In our view, while he is there on those other issues, he should also petition them to remove her from the case.

Why do we think Smith might be headed to the court of appeals? In part because he has already sought reconsideration for the latest of Cannon’s unlawful orders. This is a step that is warranted only in rare circumstances, including when a judge has made a “clear error” that led to “manifest injustice.” …

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (10 children)

possible russian space nukes

Doesn't that violate the space weapons treaty? It's no nukes, no biohazards, and... I forgot the third one

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the space weapons treaty, but I do remember learning as a middle schooler that the three classifications of WMDs are nuclear, biological, and chemical, so maybe it's no chemical weapons?

Then again, IMO, putting chemical weapons in the same category as nuclear and biological weapons is a bit like classifying rocks as the same level of danger as assault rifles and handguns, but that's a separate issue

[–] sneakattack@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In space, rocks put rifles and handguns to shame.

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Fair point, but I just meant that in general, chemical weapons are not in the same category as biological or nuclear warfare. But to your point about rocks in space, in the BattleTech (aka MechWarrior universe), orbital bombardment of any type is placed on the same level as nuclear warfare, which frankly makes a lot of sense.

I think the US even had a program that looked into the feasibility of using tungsten rods dropped (launched) from satellites (partly to get around the space weapons treaty) that would have been equivalent to dropping a nuke on a city without the nasty fallout or stigma.

[–] sneakattack@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

And if you have a lot of time on your side and with the right technological advancements for space travel you could place large rocks in fast moving large orbits that you call upon when needed. It would be an absolutely devastating amount of kinetic energy.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)