Russia tested a nuclear capable long duration engine and the US response as reported to media is that the WH requested a resumption of nuclear weapons tests. Not nuclear engine tests.

The public will be happy w/ their response. You're drawing distinctions very few people care about which is why Trump is president & you're arguing w/ random internet strangers about the absurdity of the response.

> Trump is an idiot but the people who work for him are not as idiotic

Apparently you haven't noticed that Tramp has been purging anyone loyal to the United States as a country and installing subservient apparatchiks in their place. This is not a dynamic which selects for intelligence, competence, or subject matter focus.

If you're willing to work in this space, there's probably a cohort who would like to put a shot in the hole and make it go off. The simulations are good, but people have life goals and "working on a bomb including setting one off" is probably there.

Unless there are some shot holes prepped, there is a bit of engineering to get there first. "As quickly as possible" is slow, unless you repudiate the other treaty and do an above ground or underwater shot which the US hasn't done since 1992 and even then it was basically a buried one. It hasn't done an underwater test for far longer.

I don't think the nuclear physicists & engineers building the bombs are any less competent so I don't know what point you're making. In fact, the people doing the actual work are still the same people as they were when Biden was president.

You were talking about policy, not the people designing and building bombs.

I didn't specify whether it was policy or implementation or both. The government isn't a monolithic structure w/ everyone being equally stupid or intelligent. In the case of nuclear warheads I'm certain the people who have to do the actual work are not idiots even if the policymakers are idiots.

> decided that the new policy would be the proper response.

How were you talking about anyone but policymakers?

> people who work for him

Does not mean only policymakers. In any case, I'm not concerned about this issue so good luck to you.

They do when we're talking about policies being made? I'm not super invested in this either, I just don't understand why we're going around in circles here.

Assume less & you'll be less confused in general.

I shouldn't have assumed you meant all of the words you said, or what?

You can do whatever you want but my recommendation is to assume less & ask for clarifications instead of digging yourself into a bigger hole.

I asked for clarification on the 3rd and 4th reply, when it was clear we were going around in circles. Here's another request for clarification - it seems like you are recommending that I shouldn't assume you mean the words you say?

Also if you'd like to elaborate on this "big hole", please do. I'm only seeing one kind of hole here.

You should probably get your vision checked then. Eyesight & cognition tend to deteriorate w/ age.

From your profile:

> Address the substance of my arguments

That is indeed what it says in my profile but this conversation has convinced me I'll need to add another clause about making too many assumptions.

Assumptions are required to have any kind of communication. Assumptions like you're speaking the English language and we each mean the words that you say. But apparently that is too many assumptions for you. Won't someone think of the assumptions!?!