Quote of the Day
Musk: “After World War 2, the US could have basically taken over the world and any country. Like we got nukes, nobody else got nukes. We don’t even have to lose soldiers. Which country do you want?”
One nation on earth held a weapon nobody else had.
Total dominance. Zero competition. No risk of retaliation.
Every empire in history that held that kind of advantage used it.
Rome. The Mongols. The British. The Ottomans.
They conquered until they collapsed.
America had a bigger advantage than all of them combined.
And it rebuilt the countries it just defeated.
Musk: “The United States actually helped rebuild countries. So it helped rebuild Europe, it helped rebuild Japan. This is very unusual behavior, almost unprecedented.”
Almost unprecedented?
It had never happened before. Not once in 5,000 years of recorded history.
…
We’re approaching a moment that mirrors 1945 in ways nobody has fully processed yet.
AI is going to give a handful of people a power advantage that makes nuclear monopoly look quaint.
If someone is going to hold that kind of power, who do you want it to be?
The country that conquered when it could? Or the one that rebuilt when it didn’t have to?
Every alliance. Every trade route. Every economy.
Billions lifted out of poverty.
All of it traces back to one act of restraint that had never been done before.
And carries no guarantee of being repeated.
The most powerful thing America ever did wasn’t building the bomb.
It was what it didn’t do after.
Dustin @r0ck3t23
Posted on X May 13, 2026
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. But in the absence of other data, it is the way to bet.
We live in interesting times.
I’d argue that not doubling down on colonialism after WWII was a close second. The First most amazing thing that the US did was execute the first modern peaceful civilian transfer of power after Washington refused a third term, and after Adams (a Federalist) lost re-election to Jefferson (Democrat). These two were often bitter political rivals, yet they transferred power peacefully, setting quite the global standard. Rome was the first and only place to do this (at significant scale) until the US did so, and Rome’s experiment as a Republic ended with Julius and Agustus in BC 27.
Not in the immediate aftermath of WW2. After Nagasaki, the US had one more bomb. 8 or 9 by the end of 1946. 1947 saw 13, 1948 had 50. Thereafter, numbers expanded rapidly. It is not clear who knew the size. Certainly, the Soviets did via their spy network. No wonder Stalin scoffed. Brits had pretty good knowledge in 1945 but then were cut off for a few years.
Well, Maybe 1945 American politicians/generals knew something about war and what it actually took to conquer lands and people.
Musk assumes that bombing a government will conquer it.
When everybody who has ever conquered someplace knows you have to occupy it and change the culture.
Sure we could bomb the world, but how would we occupy it?
And the fastest way to change the culture is to be helpful.
Today we see Trump and crew thinking like Musk. We can bomb Iran and we own it. Not going to happen like that.
Todays problems with AI are not the same either.
We have several murderous moronic groups that are in competition with each other controlling AI. Across several different countries.
The only thing Musk got right was it’s a weapon like no other. And the battle front is two-fold, with humanity caught in between. As not only are the warring factions natural enemies. (China vs. USA)
AI needs electricity/energy that humans also consume and need to live. The Haber-Bosche process for nitrite fertilizer uses tons on LNG. That will be needed for power generators of AI.
So, which do you want? Power for the AI war we just have to win or else. Or useless eaters?
There is no comparison to 1945 America after WWII. I can’t understand how a smart man like Musk could make such an argument?
I mean, Bill Gates is one of the warlords in this whole mess. To say nothing of Xi and Thiel.
“Today we see Trump and crew thinking like Musk. We can bomb Iran and we own it. Not going to happen like that.”
You’re right – it doesn’t happen like that.
It happens like this:
We nuke Iran until it’s an irradiated wasteland… then we own *a bunch of other countries* by saying, “Surrender to us, or end up like that.”
Now, Americans don’t WANT to do that (as evidenced repeatedly in the last 80 years). Our enemies view it as weakness – they WOULD do it.
And somehow, a lot of people (overwhelmingly idiots) view the US as the bad guy, because they are, as I said, idiots.
OK then, we’re idiots because we don’t go around nuking people we don’t like?
We should have been nuking countries we don’t like this whole time?
And you want to call me an idiot?
And sorry, anyone who spends 20 mins reading about us, the CIA, and the middle east would know we’re by far the ugliest player in the region.
We funded ISIS. One of their head-choppers was just in a suit and tie shaking hands with Trump at the white house.
And runs Syria now.
How did we do in Iraq and the Astan? Libya?
What happens when we use all our missiles “over there” and Russia and China decide to think like you do?
Being called an idiot by you is a badge of honor.
“OK then, we’re idiots because we don’t go around nuking people we don’t like?”
Um, reading comprehension much?
They view us as the bad guys because we have the power to utterly wipe out our enemies and *don’t do it* because we don’t like killing people.
Even to the extent that the stuff you just said is true (and the US government has at least done stuff LIKE that at times, whether those particular claims are accurate or not), the point is that to do things like that, the government has to be sneaky and get it past most people, because we wouldn’t agree to do horrible things like that.
Compared to previous world powers, we’re amazing. Yes, the bar is set lower than we would like by all those previous powers… but we didn’t set the bar.
“OK then, we’re idiots because we don’t go around nuking people we don’t like?”
Um, reading comprehension much?
Isn’t this what you just wrote?
It happens like this:
We nuke Iran until it’s an irradiated wasteland… then we own *a bunch of other countries* by saying, “Surrender to us, or end up like that.”
And then wondering if those things we did in the middle east are real?
So, you weren’t around when we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, funded the Arab spring?
Gave Isreal every bomb used to turn Gaza into a pile of rubble? Knowing full well that Mossad knew and probably fund the Oct 7 Hamas attack?
You weren’t around to watch what happened in Libya once the warlords took over?
You think that’s what Iran should want for it’s people? Because Libya is what happens to countries in the middle east who have “complied” with US/Israeli demands.
You weren’t around to watch Victoria Nuland/CIA start the Ukraine war with Russia that has murdered close to a million of Ukrainian native sons?
You would have a hard time nuking that many people.
I’m not saying we’re all bad or that we’re the only assholes in the world.
But I know “terrorism” when I see it.
Try being a mother in Gaza right now and thinking the USA ain’t terrorists.
And your going to throw “reading comprehension” at me?
You must have a degree from Harvard on your wall.
“You would have a hard time nuking that many people.”
In terms of US capability? No. Not remotely.
In terms of WILL? Absolutely. That was the whole point of what I said – we CAN, and we choose not to.
“And your going to throw “reading comprehension” at me?”
Yes, I am, and I’m doing it again RIGHT NOW for this very simple reason:
ALL the things you wrote could be true, and it wouldn’t contradict what I wrote.
And you obviously think it does. Hence, me pointing out that your reading comprehension is poor. It’s like pointing out to a child that they shouldn’t play in the street because they could get run over by a car, and their rejoinder is, “Oh yeah? Well my dad can beat up your dad!” Um… OK? It doesn’t matter if their dad is Andre the Giant and my dad is a quadriplegic, it doesn’t address the original point.
“Try being a mother in Gaza right now and thinking the USA ain’t terrorists.”
Try not spending dozens of generations (LONG before the state of Israel existed) raising your children on the poison of racial hatred and explicitly wiping out the Jews without regard to anything they say or do, just because they exist.
(To be clear, since you made this mistake just in the comments above this one, no, I am not referring to YOU specifically, MTHead, or YOUR children, I’m talking about the people in Gaza, Arab muslims, and to a lesser but still significant extent, muslims more generally.)
How dare Israel strike back against people who have EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY tried to commit genocide against them???
That mother may well think that – after a lifetime of constant propaganda and indoctrination, it’s be more surprising if she didn’t. It doesn’t make it true.
People think lots (and lots and lots and lots and…..) of things that aren’t true. I’d be utterly shocked if there aren’t at least a few things I think are true that aren’t true – I don’t know which ones they are, but I have found myself to be wrong before, so it’s highly unlikely that I’ve gotten everything perfect now, despite much effort.
“It happens like this:
We nuke Iran until it’s an irradiated wasteland… then we own *a bunch of other countries* by saying, “Surrender to us, or end up like that.”
You wrote that didn’t you?
So I read that wrong?
Sorry, my bad.
“Try not spending dozens of generations (LONG before the state of Israel existed) raising your children on the poison of racial hatred and explicitly wiping out the Jews without regard to anything they say or do, just because they exist.”
Actually, for about the entirety of human history. In the middle east anyway.
It’s been the Israelites against the whole neighborhood. Even though the whole Islame thing didn’t start till 600 AD, kind of.
So, why would you want to move back there in 1945? (Seems like gluttony for punishment to me.)
And why/since when is it Americas problem, at all? Ever?
How do you explain the jews opening the “Gates of Toledo” for the muslims in Spain?
And then still being there and working hand in hand with them 800 years later?
I mean once you read up on their rituals. There pretty much Siamese twin religions.
That just hate each other on occasion.
Now just seems like one of those times.
Still, “Not our monkey, not our circus.”
A better bet might be to map the limits of the technology and position yourself outside the window. Seeing the cost of doing this, most will conclude it can’t be done. Most people do not know their own limitations.
The way to win a war against a barbarian or totalitarian enemy is to commit genocide and / or ethnic cleansing. “Civilized” enemies who are more or less beholden to their citizens can be fought to a negotiated settlement. Since neither barbarians or totalitarians care how much pain and suffering is inflicted upon the body of their people the only way to succeed is to wipe them out (so that they can no longer fight back effectively and you can and will destroy their leadership completely) that’s how WW2 was won, and it’s why we have not “won” a war since then. Ultimate victory does indeed look like a graveyard, a wasteland where your enemies people used to live. Don’t believe me? Ask the Carthaginians!
“AI is going to give a handful of people a power advantage that makes nuclear monopoly look quaint.”
OK, that’s just plain silly. AI still dies to nukes, just like everything else, and nukes were originally made non-digital, non-hackable (and can easily be made so again).
The power of PR and abusing the digital world to the absolutely maximum amount possible is still ridiculously limited, and will in EXTREMELY short order by even more limited once those problems start.
Now, MAYBE some crazy-advanced AI can manage to keep us all fooled for a long time, but *that’s the only way it can win*, because the moment someone pulls the plug on the power, it loses. Nukes, bomb, running a car through a power station or 12, good old fashioned bolt cutters, etc, etc, etc.
We FEEL like the power of AI will be big, but if it is ACTUALLY big (as opposed to just *perceived* as big), it will be because it… got *control of the nukes*.
“That’s just silly.”
I watched Bill Gate stand in an auditorium full of people and tell him in words as plain as could be that he was going to kill them all. And a lot more.
And they applauded.
The reason it ain’t “silly”, but a real threat that nukes could never match is because it is going to be involved/running every facet of your life.
From sending you the wrong medicine to hitting the kill switch of your vehicle while it’s over the RR tracks.
The reason it’s worse than nukes is because it’s does what it’s psychopathic programmers tell it to.
With an intellect no human can match.
Hell, most people don’t even know Antony Fauci was one of the worst murderers to walk the earth.
Nukes wish they could keep up with that guy.
Keep thinking AI is silly, till it turns off your ventilator.
Or cancels all your accounts, while it’s answering your calls to customer support.
Yes, I see our mistake Mr. Deoxy, it should be fixed soon. Have a nice day. Not.
To say nothing of civilizational wars over and using AI that humanity will be caught between.
Sure you can turn off the power to your AI. Think China is going to turn off theirs? Humanity going to quit using computers anytime soon?
Everyone has AI in their pocket today. That’s why it ain’t silly.
You sure no one put a bomb in yours like Israelis did to Hezbollah pagers?
And how many people that survived would just go get another phone thinking their going to get a big settlement from Apple because it was just a design problem?
It’s not a silly threat because we ain’t nearly as smart as we want to believe we are.
“From sending you the wrong medicine to hitting the kill switch of your vehicle while it’s over the RR tracks.
The reason it’s worse than nukes is because it’s does what it’s psychopathic programmers tell it to.”
1950s, 1960, 1970s, 1980s era tech is all utterly immune to all of that.
Sure, there can be some hits at the beginning, but if it doesn’t win in an absolute ambush and kill us all, that old tech will be what we switch back to.
Nukes don’t care about the tech level they are hitting.
The digital world LOSES to physical world action. When the digital world has no connection to the physical world, it’s all over, the physical world wins.
AI can be a threat, absolutely! I don’t disagree with any of the scary things you wrote.
It just still loses ridiculously to a 1970s nuke. That’s why I said it’s silly to make that statement about AI being WORSE than nukes.
“1950s, 1960, 1970s, 1980s era tech is all utterly immune to all of that.”
Correct.
But we ain’t those people anymore, was my point.
If you nuke us. We go on the defense.
If we just keep dropping like flies? (Like we are today.)
Who needs nukes?
The tech bros are wiping us off the map and replacing us with people far more controlable.
Over 600,000 dead to cancer, and another 100,000 to OD annually. And that’s before AI has even taken over.
Russian Communists killed over 60 million in roughly 60 years. And the only nuke that got them was chernobl.
China more than that. Not a nuke dropped anywhere.
How? Cause their people were brainwashed idiots.
Kind of like the ones you see walking across busy streets looking at their phones today.
No nukes necessary.
You’re not wrong about that…
but it REQUIRES finesse, being very careful to keep people not paying attention, not switching to the old tech to get away from the digital manipulation.
Because nukes beat that. That’s why I’m saying the comparison is silly. The AI method might be able to work, but it has LOT more fail states than nukes. For nukes, it’s largely, “Who blew the other one up before their birds were in the air” (and if they both get there, good chance both die). With AI, it’s “how long can I keep them from noticing, because if they ever notice in any capacity other thank a tiny number of dismissable cranks, AI loses.”
America rebuilt Japan and western Europe for a reason. So they could help counter the threat of Communism. If we hadn’t both regions would almost certainly have been infiltrated by the communists and become our enemy. We didn’t do all that out of altruistic intent. It was pragmatic reality. We needed allies.