• yakko@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    …I thought we were just having a friendly chat up until now. I know this is a touchy subject, but Lemmy is too small to mistreat one another over differences of opinion.

      • yakko@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I will say, I got my current impression from Hardcore History. The logical insanity episode - I’m open to the idea that it’s wrong, but I’m not just going to switch views because it’s being called cold war propaganda. Can you throw me a bone here?

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          55 minutes ago

          Sure the simplest reason is that you don’t need to have civil matters centralized just to maintain that rapid military response. Ideally the commander in chief and executive branch would both be elected but separate positions for example. You don’t need a strong executive branch you just need a well working system, sure it’s technically easier to have it under an executive but easy doesn’t mean good.

          Also it seems like more traditional bomber dropped nukes will take over once more, this means that the point is just to get them in the air before worst comes to worst. Most of the needed resources will already be assembled where needed meaning it doesn’t much matter if the executive even exists still since everything should’ve been set up long before then.

          My point is that the reasoning is flawed since it assumes that the most effective action is to have a strong centralized power. When ideally you’d want a well maintained decentralized network of response facilities.