It's sad to say, but I have a feeling that it will take a totally-avoidable, Trump-made catastrophic disaster to turn a majority of the population against him and his cronies enough to oust them before it's too late and they turn the Republic into the 4th Reich.

And so sadly, I wonder if a nuclear accident and the subsequent immediate removal of Trump and the Trumpista who caused it, followed by the prompt restoration of the rule of law in this country, wouldn't be preferrable to years of low-level but cumulative, and ultimately graver damage.

[–] SerotoninSqueeze@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There’s got to be some end/long game here, I’m not sure what the surprise could be, but if a nuclear catastrophe happens here soon the official narrative should definitely be met with caution. What could musk and his group of technocrats gain from the loss of control from NNSA. The only thing I could think of (and this is just armchair speculation) is some type of shock and awe operation on the American public to either declare war, martial law, or to change the constitution.

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think Hanlon's razor applies here: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I think Trump and Musk haven't thought anything through and they're applying Silicon Valley's idiotic "move fast and break things" motto. The trouble is, while this may be fine to develop a web browser or a social media platform, it doesn't apply to many things that require forethought and time to do things right because they are literally not allowed to break, such as nuclear shit.

[–] CapriciousDay@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think Hanlon's razor is a false dichotomy here. Neither stupidity nor malice are required to explain self-interest, which is the far more likely explanation given the people involved and their actions up to this point.

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Neither stupidity nor malice are required to explain self-interest

Yeah but see that's what does not compute: in what scenario does any oligarch benefit from increasing the country's nuclear risk? There's a thousand and one ways to make a lot more money a lot more safely, quickly and quietly.

That's why I'm of the opinion that Trumsk don't friggin' know what they're doing.

[–] CapriciousDay@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Without knowing the finer details, my assumption would be that it's some kind of risk/reward tradeoff.

Ok the nuclear risk is higher, but causing chaos in nuclear security could create opportunities like giving Trump or Musk more direct access to the nukes or removing people who might have prevented them from using them, thereby granting them more personal leverage. This would be in keeping with the Project 2025 aligned executive orders and such.

There might even be commercial opportunities for Musk: "oh well the state management of nuclear security was super inefficient, ApocalypseX will do it"

Remember disaster capitalism is a thing.

[–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Indeed, this was he strategy laid out a couple of days ago in another post: The government fires essential workers, a newly created private company hires them (Trump Nuclear), pays them 15% more, works them twice the hours, and then charges the government (the people) 5 times as much for their work—all while lowering quality and safety standards.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 1 week ago

I can't believe how often I see someone mention nuclear weapons going off as preferable to anything.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

As someone elsewhere said, Trump might be firing the watchdogs to backdoor more nuclear weapons out to Israel.