Nuclear Threat

[Rexedgar]

When does supplying a combatant become an act of war? We have been fighting proxy wars since the end of WW2. Greek civil war, Korea, Israel, Vietnam, Balkans, Afghanistan…I’m probably forgetting a few.

It seems to all come down to who pulls the trigger. The world is in an unstable place right now, IMO.

 

[HIP56948]

I'm sure many people are not sleeping as well as they were 2 weeks ago. One of my neighbors sons, who works at Lowes, made the comment "The sales of electrical generators has sharply gone up"
You can't blame them but if the horrible scenario actually happens, them finding gas will be worse than finding diamonds.

 

[Jkca1]

Yes, world is an unstable place. Just going for a ride in your car and see how many idiots are on the road. Do you still drive? Of course. The Ukraine conflict will be over before the summer starts. Then what will you worry about? Climate change? Civil war?

Growing up we conducted regular drills for atomic warfare in school;

"The now-infamous duck-and-cover drills simulated what should be done in case of an atomic attack—and channeled a growing panic over an escalating arms race."

Are you kids regularly subjected to that drill? Do you have a fallout shelter in your back yard? If the answer is no to either of those questions you need to take a step back from the brink because we are safer today than we were 50+ year ago. I hope you can sleep better now. I sleep like a baby that snores.

 

[Evilroddy]

Rexedgar:

That fear has been with the world since 1945 and with the USA since the very late 1940's. It has not changed substantially since then. All we can do is to either trust that cooler heads in positions of leadership prevail in avoiding the use of such dreadful weapons or we ourselves have the energy and resolve to become those cooler heads in,our own times and thus make sure it doesn't happen on our watch.

However this latest war in Ukraine and the wider crisis around it teaches us two important things. One is that possession of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them is a powerful shieldfor any state and wards off military intervention from even global hegemons. That leads to a desire to proliferate nuclear weapon and delivery system possession among low or medium tier military powers who wish to be shielded from hegemonic military power. The other learned lesson is in an age of proliferating nuclear weapons, conventional war is becoming obsolete incrementally. So if we survive this learning process we may one day learn how to live with each other in peace, while we are all under the spectre of polypolar nuclear weapon annihilation. Once used to living peace through nuclear terror we may develop habits which make the nukes less useful to hold, at which point the terror slowly wanes as proliferated nuclear weapon inventories come down.

A pipe dream, perhaps, but I prefer it to accepting that I will one day become a shadow-like non-burn mark on a ruined wall in a post-nuclear wasteland.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Rexedgar]

Rexedgar:

That fear has been with the world since 1945 and with the USA since the very late 1940's. It has not changed substantially since then. All we can do is to either trust that cooler heads in positions of leadership prevail in avoiding the use of such dreadful weapons or we ourselves have the energy and resolve to become those cooler heads in,our own times and thus make sure it doesn't happen on our watch.

However this latest war in Ukraine and the wider crisis around it teaches us two important things. One is that possession of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them is a powerful shieldfor any state and wards off military intervention from even global hegemons. That leads to a desire to proliferate nuclear weapon and delivery system possession among low or medium tier military powers who wish to be shielded from hegemonic military power. The other learned lesson is in an age of proliferating nuclear weapons, conventional war is becoming obsolete incrementally. So if we survive this learning process we may one day learn how to live with each other in peace, while we are all under the spectre of polypolar nuclear weapon annihilation. Once used to living peace through nuclear terror we may develop habits which make the nukes less useful to hold, at which point the terror slowly wanes as proliferated nuclear weapon inventories come down.

A pipe dream, perhaps, but I prefer it to accepting that I will one day become a shadow-like non-burn mark on a ruined wall in a post-nuclear wasteland.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

There was a comment on the events the world is experiencing in the last few days; the gist was, “what if future isn’t better than the past?”

 

[Evilroddy]

There was a comment on the events the world is experiencing in the last few days; the gist was, “what if future isn’t better than the past?”

Rexedgar:

I have to live in a world of responsible hope and thus have to see our nuclear weapon future as better than our past. If I am wrong, and things escalate out of control, then my hope will not matter and my deep disappointment will be fleeting. Perhaps I should pick out a nice strong wall now?

Cheers and good fortune to all of us in a mad MAD world. Oh! You be well too.
Evilroddy.

 

[tacomancer]

Now is the time to get right with God. I don't think we're headed for widespread nuclear warfare, but you never know.

For those who are more skeptical, consider pascal's wager.

 

[mrjurrs]

Now is the time to get right with God. I don't think we're headed for widespread nuclear warfare, but you never know.

For those who are more skeptical, consider pascal's wager.

If I go with the wager, which god do you suggest I consider?

 

[tacomancer]

If I go with the wager, which god do you suggest I consider?

Disclaimer: I will not engage in a theological debate in this thread.

To answer your question, my recommendation is under the magic taco picture.

 

[Rexedgar]

Rexedgar:

I have to live in a world of responsible hope and thus have to see our nuclear weapon future as better than our past. If I am wrong, and things escalate out of control, then my hope will not matter and my deep disappointment will be fleeting. Perhaps I should pick out a nice strong wall now?

Cheers and good fortune to all of us in a mad MAD world. Oh! You be well too.
Evilroddy.

 

[mrjurrs]

Disclaimer: I will not engage in a theological debate in this thread.

To answer your question, my recommendation is under the magic taco picture.

I'm not debating anyone, I'm asking which god gives me the best chance of winning the bet?

 

[tacomancer]

I'm not debating anyone, I'm asking which god gives me the best chance of winning the bet?

In my opinion, the Christian God.

 

[mrjurrs]

In my opinion, the Christian God.

And so in continuing not to debate theology, I'll close with saying I'm not okay with the idea that a god that is not believed in by the world and would allow nonbelievers to do whatever it is they believe happens they die, is not a god I would be willing to bet with.

 

[tacomancer]

And so in continuing not to debate theology, I'll close with saying I'm not okay with the idea that a god that is not believed in by the world and would allow nonbelievers to do whatever it is they believe happens they die, is not a god I would be willing to bet with.

you're choice

 

[noonereal]

Now is the time to get right with God. I don't think we're headed for widespread nuclear warfare, but you never know.

For those who are more skeptical, consider pascal's wager.

As Putin believes in terrorizing the population rather than just going after military targets, anyone near NYC and Dc has good reason for concern.

 

[mrjurrs]

you're choice

No, I'm agnostic.

 

[Evilroddy]

I'm not debating anyone, I'm asking which god gives me the best chance of winning the bet?

mrjurrs:

The god which created the rational and reasonable brains we need to get ourselves out of this latest iteration of the human addiction to war. The god that gave us the mental tools to survive while we constrain our irrational fears and to use all of our wits to deescalate this latest eruption of explosive pus from the septic global-boil of war. The god that will let us end the greed and the greed-driven pride which propels many of those who rise to power, to get what they want by war. God or the gods, or the fates have done their job, the rest is up to us. We must take charge and bear the burden of responsibility to win the greatest wager on survival for both friends and foes alike. We, friend and foe must not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances in offence or defence. That is the only decision-set which will let us win your bet.

Cheers, be well. be principled, be brave in the face of adversity and be strong.
Evilroddy.

 

[mrjurrs]

mrjurrs:

The god which created the rational and reasonable brains we need to get ourselves out of this latest iteration of the human addiction to war. The god that gave us the mental tools to survive while we constrain our irrational fears and to use all of our wits to deescalate this latest eruption explosive pus from the septic global-boil of war. The god that will let us end the greed and the greed-driven pride which propels many of those who rise to power, to get what they want by war. God or the gods, or the fates have done their job, the rest is up to us. We must take charge and bear the burden of responsibility to win the greatest wager on survival for both friends and foes alike. We, friend and foe must not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances in offence or defence. That is the only decision-set which will let us win your bet.

Cheers, be well. be principled, be brave in the face of adversity and be strong.
Evilroddy.

Always enjoy your thought provoking posts er. Imo, the key part of your post is "... the rest is up to us."

 

[Evilroddy]

View attachment 67378065

Rexedgar:

Well at least you got my good side for my final "Ozymandias-moment" legacy image. Well done there. You see the power of optimism in the face of death? As they said in the Monty Python's divine comedy, "The Life of Brian" -"... always look on the bright side of life.".



Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Rexedgar]

Rexedgar:

Well at least you got my good side for my final "Ozymandias-moment" legacy image. Well done there. You see the power of optimism in the face of death? As they said in the Monty Python's divine comedy, "The Life of Brian" -"... always look on the bright side of life.".



Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Always learn something chatting with you.

 

[Gatsby]

When does supplying a combatant become an act of war? We have been fighting proxy wars since the end of WW2. Greek civil war, Korea, Israel, Vietnam, Balkans, Afghanistan…I’m probably forgetting a few.

It seems to all come down to who pulls the trigger. The world is in an unstable place right now, IMO.

I agree. It seems totally arbitrary that "NATO shot down a Russian plane" would be an act of war that could trigger nuclear annihilation...but "NATO gave Ukraine anti-aircraft weapons specifically to shoot down Russian planes" is considered all part of the game. Maybe there are good historical reasons for that distinction, but I hope that Vladimir Putin sees it the same way as our foreign policy advisors do.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it...but Putin could lash out unpredictably. Russia's economy is in shambles, and their military situation is looking like a quagmire. We need to be very careful and avoid any more escalation that we didn't intend. At this stage, I hope that both NATO and Russia are taking some deep breaths to assess the situation rationally. Let's stop ratcheting up the pressure, because it's possible to push too far.

 

[Evilroddy]

I'm not debating anyone, I'm asking which god gives me the best chance of winning the bet?

mrjurrs:

Taco answered your question even before you asked it. However he answered it from his point of view but there is plenty of room here for different POVs. See post #12.

Cheers and be well.
Your brother in ignorance (agnostic).
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

I agree. It seems totally arbitrary that "NATO shot down a Russian plane" would be an act of war that could trigger nuclear annihilation...but "NATO gave Ukraine anti-aircraft weapons specifically to shoot down Russian planes" is considered all part of the game. Maybe there are good historical reasons for that distinction, but I hope that Putin sees it the same way as our foreign policy advisors do.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it...but Putin could lash out unpredictably. Russia's economy is in shambles, and their military situation is looking like a quagmire. We need to be very careful and avoid any more escalation that we didn't intend. At this stage, I hope that both NATO and Russia are taking some deep breaths to assess the situation rationally. Let's stop ratcheting up the pressure, because it's possible to push too far.

Gatsby:

Sure, there are conventions, codes and traditions for state's and individuals' conduct in wartime but there have never really been enforceable laws, except those which are the victors' "justice" over the "vanquished". After WWII we punished the evils of the vanquished but looked away from and ignored the evils of the victors.

So when does providing weapons of war become tantamount to making war itself? When the adversary decides it does and widens the war to the suppliers accordingly. It really is that opaque and yet that simple.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Rexedgar]

Gatsby:

Sure, there are conventions, codes and traditions for state's and individuals' conduct in wartime but there have never really been enforceable laws, except those which are the victors' "justice" over the "vanquished". After WWII we punished the evils of the vanquished but looked away from and ignored the evils of the victors.

So when does providing weapons of war become tantamount to making war itself? When the adversary decides it does and widens the war to the suppliers accordingly. It really is that opaque and yet that simple.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Only those that we had no use for got prosecuted.

 

[Oozlefinch]

It seems totally arbitrary that "NATO shot down a Russian plane" would be an act of war that could trigger nuclear annihilation...but "NATO gave Ukraine anti-aircraft weapons specifically to shoot down Russian planes" is considered all part of the game.

That had never been considered the way it was played, until Putin stepped up hi aggression.

Before the US entered WWII until the present day, supplying other nations with arms was just considered to be how the game was played. We supplied one side, they supplied the other. And sometimes we both supplied both sides, and neither supplied either side. It all depended on what the goal of the realpolitik was at the moment.

But more and more, I am wondering if like many wars in the past, this one is being driven by internal reasons. Russia is looking increasingly fractioned as this drags on, and the "defections" of his own soldiers reminds me a lot of the UK-Argentina tiff a few decades ago. And the growing unrest at home, something Russia has not had to face since WWI.