So sorry to disappoint you, but it appears that he is not only profoundly and immeasurably stupid, but also his cowardice matches his stupidity.

There is no USA anymore. There is the trumpistan, an open enemy of the Western world.

There is no difference between the trumpistan and, for example, putin's pederation in terms of the kind of foreign influence they're trying to peddle.

So your question is completely meaningless.

The trump's bunker buster bombs "obliterated" the Iranian nuclear program in June 2025.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/rel...

Saying more bombs were necessary after this first obliteration is treason against trump the yuge.

Are you calling him a liar or an imbecile?

I stand corrected and you're spot on. A quantum dosing rod is certainly nothing to sneeze at.

Yes, we see some humans aren't nice at all and try to bully everyone, hiding behind a nuclear umbrella and giving an example of their lookalikes worldwide.

We also see how they end up with a smashed and badly blooded nose even when they think they are very powerful, like Putin in Ukraine.

Imagine what it is like, losing the war to a cruel regime of people you despise as weak and just when you thought you hold all the cards and won all the battles...

Unconscionable!

The biggest supporters of the ayatollah, putin and the corrupt Gulf monarchies and other dictatorial powers are the MAGA morons and trumptards like yourself.

The policies that your chieftain helps legitimize are the policies that those dictators hope are the "international law".

You don't want "fissile material" for a dirty bomb because it is useless, these are typically low-intensity alpha emitters.

You want radioactive waste. It is a by-product of fission and fusion and arises naturally when a nuke is used, if the nuke is configured that way. But this is a wasteful use of the nuke, because instead of it being extremely destructive over a very large area in a short time, it becomes moderately destructive over a much smaller area for a very long time, which sometimes may hamper you more than your enemy.

So your best option is the "waste" from a nuclear reactor, but this is also less than optimal, because a lot of it isn't radioactive, you do have to transport it while it is most dangerous, as it's hot hot and radioactive hot. It has to move quickly because its most dangerous components decay fast with time. Once delivered, you have to spread it efficiently, which isn't easy either.

So yeah, it is the least efficient way to use nuclear material.

The proper modern approach is to remove the need for warfare.

Remember that ole scifi book, where one of the commerce princes said "the blaster shoots both ways"?

After the fail of operation Epstein Fury, we'll be getting hundreds of "feel-good" bullshit stories.

In reality, the stupid war of aggression strengthened the regime in Iran and will likely provide them with another source of income, the Hormuz Straits tax, that they did not collect before that.

A trumpistani move that is even more stupid than the tariff trade war with the world.

Yeah, Iraq, Hormuz, Cape Horn...

Damned Oregonians, don't even know what a map is :)))

Whatever happened to the love for "free markets" and "freedumbs" in general?

I notice that you build large strawmen (e.g. "the ayatollahs you support") but you have nothing to say about the multi-billionaire war criminals that you actually support making "deals" with dictators and drug cartel leaders:

https://ofac.treasury.gov/rece...

LOL.

Yes, tinfoil-hat dumbfuckery. Like Alan Greenspan, for example.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Other people, too, notably CENTCOM's Gen. John Abizaid: "Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that", Chuck Hagel: "People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are", etc.

Quoted, for example, here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/0...

Of course the opinion of a slashdot anonymous poster, prescient and more deeply involved than these people, takes precedence :)

Indeed. And the only reason is that the plan failed, because the US companies found they would be liable for profiting from it under US law. So they declined.

And of course this failed plan has been the major point of criticism of the Iraqi campaign by don the buffoon. I won't even look for references, he was crying about "why we didn't take iraqi oil are well-known", although you'll probably deny them.

Telling me it isn't about oil against literally a mountain of evidence it is is plainly ridiculous.

But so are you in your MAGA-like patriotic fervor.

The executives at google define the policy, the technical crew implement it. The policy is "descriptive neutrality", which is roughly equal to the "fair and balanced" approach of Fox News, with a slight push for normalizing the "official position".

So, while technical decision (how to implement a policy) are not a concern of the executives, setting the policy (what to implement) most definitely is.

The point being that the "descriptive neutrality" with a preference for the "official side" is a thing, which you can easily test yourself - thankfully, the current administration has provided a number of test cases where it diverges sharply from reality, science and common sense.

The default answer of any model will very likely normalize this "official" stance AND push it as a first choice, which influences most users, as is the goal of the policy.

Here's the summary for some names you may know:

Elon Musk ~1.25 Trumps
Vladimir Putin ~1.20 Trumps
Muammar Gaddafi ~1.10 Trumps
Peter Thiel ~0.4 to 0.5 Trumps
Ursula von der Leyen ~0.15 Trumps
Google AI (Hypothetical) ~0.125 Trumps