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:
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: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?”
If I go with the wager, which god do you suggest I consider?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.
Disclaimer: I will not engage in a theological debate in this thread.If I go with the wager, which god do you suggest I consider?
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.
I'm not debating anyone, I'm asking which god gives me the best chance of winning the bet?Disclaimer: I will not engage in a theological debate in this thread.
To answer your question, my recommendation is under the magic taco picture.
In my opinion, the Christian God.I'm not debating anyone, I'm asking which god gives me the best chance of winning the bet?
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.In my opinion, the Christian God.
you're choiceAnd 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.
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.
No, I'm agnostic.you're choice
I'm not debating anyone, I'm asking which god gives me the best chance of winning the bet?
Always enjoy your thought provoking posts er. Imo, the key part of your post is "... the rest is up to us."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.
Rexedgar:
Always learn something chatting with you.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.
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.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.
mrjurrs:I'm not debating anyone, I'm asking which god gives me the best chance of winning the bet?
Gatsby: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.
Only those that we had no use for got prosecuted.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?