My only response to that would be F.E.A.R Fuck. Everything. And. Run. Can you truely trust any gorvernment to do the right thing? The flags may be different but the motives are all the same. For me i'm more concerned about Global Water Wars, Food shortages, Climate change, Rise of A.I.'s and overpopulation contributing to all those problems. Nuclear war is a valid and rational fear but it shouldn't take precident over all the other more immediate problems that our species as whole faces.
Sounds like me, circa 1960-65. But we got through that phase... and a few more since.... except the ones who didn't. I lived; several kids i knew who were sent to Viet Nam died. I protested and petitioned and marched and all that stuff - which did no good whatever - while others who were only a little more outspoken and equally ineffective went to jail, got beaten and persecuted and shot at. In between, we talked, planned, made art and music and love, traveled, partied and had a great old time. You don't know which of your cohort, will do fine and which fall, nor how many, but that's no reason to refuse any happiness that offers itself. For the dead, it makes no difference whether they were single casualties or part of an extinction event; short or long, life is for making the most of. Live as if the insanity were temporary. A lot of things will happen that are not obvious yet, and they're not all bad - at least in the long term. Climate change is pretty bad, and maybe you can help do something about that. Overpopulation is a problem that maybe you can a tiny bit about. Energy, water and food crises are likely to be bad, and maybe you can help do something about that. You can try to organize your own life not to be under the biggest toppling edifice. You can't do anything about world politics, hate or militarism, but you may take a little comfort in the prospect of economic collapse and the breakdown of these huge blocs of consolidated power. Afterward, the world picture may look quite different. That's normal and appropriate. You kind of get used to it: like a persistent smell or noise, it blends into the background. Besides, the threat level goes up and down; there may be years at a time with no imminent crisis.
What I'm worried about is escalation. It's unlikely that Russia is just going to, out of the blue, decide to nuke the US, or vice versa. But what I'm worried about is, say, the situation in Syria escalating. Or the situation in Iran, if one country decides to invade. Or the situation in Eastern Europe, with the missile shield. Or if Georgia joins NATO and gets into a war with Russia. I'm afraid of what one thing can lead to. Also, I got the imagery from one of those 80's movies stuck in my head and it won't stop replaying in my mind, which is really making it hard to function. I've been on edge and scared for a long time. I'm wondering if I should ask for someone to calm me down or if it's even justified to calm down.
Of course. That's what always happens... until it stops. Why it stops varies from crisis to crisis, year to year, situation to situation, and you can't - dear sainted Asange notwithstanding - get anywhere near enough accurate information to begin to formulate a sketch of a theory to predict the next one, so don't clutter up your head with trying. Russia doesn't make it into the yellow range... this year. Have way more internal problems and middle east problems and far east problems than problems with the US. Yes, but probably far below nuke level. Lots of brutality, torture and shooting into crowds at random, but unlikely to go international: both east and west will sit and watch, make a deal with the winners. Who will invade whom? Think in terms of what's to be gained - which is how the people who run the world think. Who gains anything from invading Iran? Can the US afford another big invasion? They've botched the last three; the generals must be growing a little bit skittish by now. Plus, they've blown several shitloads of money and they're scraping retirement funds and police forces just to keep the clandestine ops solvent. Israel may be bluster and posture, but hasn't the military power and nuclear attack wouldn't accomplish anything: they're not really that stupid. Half of that ordnance was never functional in the first place and all of it is manned by indifferent incompetents. That doesn't reassure you? Okay then, the problems of eastern Europe are financial, social and ecological (if only they'd admit it!). They're not going to war with anybody, though they might try to splinter into even smaller tribes, if that's possible. Well, maybe the Roma will demand a homeland. That whole situation was created by CNN. Okay, maybe not. But Russia isn't going to do anything stupid, just as they haven't up to now, in spite of some major provocation. For me, it's Dr. Strangelove. Hey, we all have grains of sand stuck in us someplace - if we keep working at them, they'll eventually become pearls. If you're viable, you'll calm down on your own. Drugs are probably the wrong way to go. I recommend time and perspective. Zoom out. Anxiety is the human condition. Write, paint, sculpt, sing, fall in love, go on hikes, solve equations, laugh, cure shingles, sail, build bird-feeders. Live. Fukkem.
It cannot happen. CANNOT. The only use for nuclear weapons is to prevent others from attacking you. Its like having a polar bear as a guard dog, you cannot use it. Its stupidly wasteful and unnecessarily agressive. Cutting off trade supplies or monetary aid is a good first strike. Cyberwarfare is a good second strike. Political and commercial ostracism can then bring most nations to their knees. You dont even need to invade a country.
Ok.. that makes little sense. We have them, so they are there to be used. Why keep nukes as a preventive measure? There is a security risk to their existence more over than not having them at all and worrying what if evil develops one? Then again, what if? However, what if it is stolen? I say just get rid of them once we are able to enforce the world.
No. THe only time nukes were made to be used was in ww2. Since then, all nukes have been made only as deterents. Their large scale use is wasteful and harmful to all parties involved. Their security risks are obviously considered and accounted for by their developers. And evil is quite an ambiguous term. A terrorist organisation cannot make a nuke. And even if they steal one and use it, 2 things - they dont have any more nukes and noone would use a nuke against them. Better to just convert them to nuclear propulsion devices for long range spacecraft.
Ok. Toxic piers are visiting California from Japan.. When my children 50 years from now are literally cleaning a toxic pacific I claim right to anarchy as a free man of a offended planet by law of the jungle. In law of the jungle I seek control. You see, I am honest.
I sincerely apologise, I meant no offense. I do not understand what it means for 'toxic piers to come' or 'law of the jungle' or seeking control by it and what does honestly have to do with it. You see, the only one who should be offended is me, since I am unable to extrapolate the meaning of the short and concise post.
It was a dock, not a pier. Im surprised you haven't read this. http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57449195&feed_id=0&videofeed=36&emvcc=-3 That can sum up my point. We have toxic wreckage in the Pacific Ocean after only 60 years of nukes, that has to be a red alert to everyone. We don't need a nuclear war for them to kill our planet. The rest has to do with how I see the world. I want law of the jungle over what we are doing now. Im not happy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'll be more attentive to staying strictly on-topic.
I would find this comforting, but it makes the assumption that all actors are rational. What happens if either leader or some general gets an itchy trigger (or button) finger? What happens if, like I said, some fundamentalists with apocalyptic fantasies gets put in charge? And how can you be so sure Russia or the US won't invade Iran or that NATO won't allow Georgia in?
areasys, et al, Yes, it is comforting to think that all actors are rational actors. But we know this is not true. The important piece is to know the difference between rational actors and irrational players - and what impact that has on the cultural survival instincts. (COMMENT) Unlike Hollywood, the single irrational personality is generally guarded against. Nation States that have a nuclear weapons capacity have extensive protocols to guard against the lone-gunman scenario. While it is not entirely possible, like all calculated efforts of this sort, it is a "risk assessment;" possible but not probable. It is the risk we take in the dangerous world in which we live. Vigilance and internal security become a factor; and complacency becomes a serious liability. (COMMENT) The NATO Alliance is just that; an alliance. Membership is not a critical issue. The entire idea behind the establishment of NATO is the "common defense." As regional security stabilizes, the less there is emphasis. Russia and the US may, at some point under some condition, strike Iran; but the likelihood of an "invasion" is much - much less likely. Neither nation has the resources or the capacity to move-in and tame the beast. The US has demonstrated it limits in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither its collective economic influences - or its powerful military force has the ability to effectively control a country the size of Iran with all the baggage that brings with it. Russia would even have less of an chance in success. Both Russia and the US have the ability to militarily defeat the forces of Iran, neither, individually or collectively, have the resources necessary to stabilize Iran after conventional hostilities have ceased. One needs only look at the development of the post-combat phase in Iraq to know that it is beyond the ability of the Western Powers to suppress the cultural, barbaric, and fanatically lawless tendency that dominate the nature of the indigenous populations. Only the internal evolution of the culture and society can do that. While it is possible for the regional people to eventually adopt a 21st Century civilization, it will not happen in lifetime; under the current intelligencia. It is not in the nature of the regional populace. To get a grasp on this, one needs only look at the recent developments in Libya and Egypt. They are what they are. The western powers need to adopt a hands-off policy and allow these nations within these regions to choose their own destiny. Yes, internal conflict may (probably) will arise. But few of these nations have the intellectual capacity to leap beyond the Darwinian Solution (survival of the fittest). External intervention will only prolong the agony. At some point - the dominate and true nature of these indigenous populations will have to have to eliminate the counterculture and emerge with a single unified face. Once that happens, then and only then, can the western powers establish economic, commercial and political relationships with whatever remains. Most Respectfully, R
areasys, et al, Relative to the original questions! (COMMENT) War with, and the invasion of, Iran are two distinctly different issues. The invasion of Iran, except for very key terrain - isolated and defendable, is highly unlikely. It is simply beyond the military capacity to achieve given the present conditions of the armed forces of the western powers; and the societal nature of Iran and its people. It is a definite losing proposition; for both sides of the equation. Make no mistake, Iran is a rational player. It has define golas and objectives and is working to achieve a future end-state. It will not jeopardize the attainment without a reasonable expectation of success. While war is posible; but improbable, invasion is almost entirely out of the question. (COMMENT) Russia is a rational player; just as the US and NATO will act rationally. Georgia wants to be rational, but is a bit emotional and paranoid. None of the players in this question wants to push the issue to the brink of war. If it came to a conflict, it would be a conventional war, not nuclear. And Russia would definitely have the upper hand. (COMMENT) China is not interested in war of a military nature. It is, and will continue to seek, technologies of a military nature for the 21st Century. But China sees itself as the next Super Power, replacing the US, using the weapons of a more enlighten nation. The combined strengths of commerce, industrial production, economic influence, and scientific advancements will be the weapons of choice for China. these are the exact same strengths that brought the US to Power, but exactly what the US abandoned and turned onto the declining path. China and the World, see the US becoming a "service based" nation. Its banking industry and manufacturing capacity are becoming multinational with not allegiance to America or its people. By comparison, China is all about the betterment of the nation. It's every action is calculated to benefit the nation in every critical area: Science and Technology Education and Research Modernization of the national Infrastructure Adoption of new technologies in commerce and manufacturing Expansion in the standard of living and nation building While the US have fallen behind, China has constantly advanced in these critical areas. No student in mathematics, engineering, or cornerstone science graduates without job prospects, as opposed to the US. China and the world see America as a greedy country that has gone from putting a man on the Moon to hitchhiking into space, when it can. There are no real national project in America. Where once, a Particle Physicist wanted to go to FERMI Lab, today they go to CERN. No, China will overcome America, but not by military force. America will fall as the corrupt banking industry strips the last of the remaining revenue out of the internal economy and reduces the nation to a body of McDonald Hamburger flippers. (COMMENT) This issue will tame itself. Pakistan is a rational player. It knows that the last thin that India wants is another depressed region under the umbrella of its government. Pakistan has absolutely nothing to go to war over. So, Pakistan knows that if it comes to war, India will not be merciful. It will totally destroy Pakistan and strip it of its infrastructure; reducing it to the 18th Century. If there is a meltdown, then the western powers just need to stand clear and give India a wide birth. It will get ugly, but it will be resolved. (COMMENT) Of little consequence. The economic strength of the US will force America to retract its hegemony and the influences it is trying to maintain. Without a very strong domestic economy, the US will not be able to maintain its military strength for much longer. It is unlikely that the US will be a significant in the next two decades. Neither of these personalities really wants a retaliatory strike upon the US. And they both know that the use of the US strategic nuclear force will bring just that. This is a non-problem. It is more likely that a candidate like Mitt Romney will inadvertently start a Persian Gulf conflict. Most Respectfully, R
There is almost no realistic scenario in which Russia would cooperate with such a US action. At most, Russia might be forced to stand aside and allow the US to proceed. Yes they do, they just don't have the political appetite to do the sort of damage that would entail. Again, the USA has effecitvely controlled much more influential countries before (Japan and Germany). What is lacking is the political will (and international legitimacy) to do the sort of damage up front that would render Iran controllable. Again, that's only true if you assume that they would be unwilling to do grievious damage to Iran's civilian population and infrastructure in the process. Both Russia and the USA have successfully used the "grind them down into dirt and then call the shots for decades after that, with no resistance" approach before. Exactly - in Iraq, the USA overthrew the state in short order but didn't pound the population into submission in the process. The whole idea was to leave as much of Iraq's infrastructure and population intact as possible. The result is a situation that you can't control. Well, that's offensively racist. That is also offensively racist. Again, offensively racist. LOL, as if you can just dash off some reference to those events and have it support your racist contentions, without even attempting an analysis - or even stating what your take on the events even is.
That is silly. The occupation of Iran would be a problem; invasion, not so much. If emotion and paranoia are incompatible with rationality, then Russia isn't rational either. But of course that is a false dichotomy in the first place. There is no such thing as a conventional war between nuclear powers, by definition. And such a scenario is exactly why Georgia will not be admitted to NATO in the forseeable future. This reads like CCP propaganda. Maybe you and BillyT should go on a date. You can be a rational player and still end up in a catastrophic scenario, if your position and/or goals are untenable, or you miscalculate, or you just get unlucky. No, there are things that India wants even less than that. Regardless of what either side "wants," India is going to dominate Pakistan and Pakistan is going to resist that. Well, then, it's kind of strange that Pakistan has been at war continuously since it came into existence. Irrational, one might even say. This is a canard - there are plenty of examples in history of powers whose economies were second-rate, but which nevertheless presented fearsome military power that strongly influenced geopolitics. The USSR is an obvious example, as for that matter is modern Russia. LOL yeah, good luck with that prediction. Depends on who you strike with that force. Unless it's Russia, the USA stands a rather good chance of eliminating the target's retaliatory capabilities in a first strike. Even if it is Russia, it's uncertain that significant retaliatory capability would survive. He'd presumably have to become a President before he could do anything like that.
I don't make that assumption at all. I'm only saying that the current, rational and relatively intelligent, actors won't nuke one another. Remember, in my first comment, i did mention the proliferation of lunatics. Can't recall whether i also mentioned the global unraveling of reason, backlash against science, dismantling of all restraints and breakdown of order. We'll find out soon enough. Or you will - i'm hoping to be outa here before then. My top guess: biological warfare of short duration. But they might threaten and foam at the mouth until hunger, thirst, extreme weather and population pressure drive vast herds of humans into frenzied flight, killing everyone and everything in their way. There are some convenient cliffs in Newfoundland and Norway for migratory termini. I can't. But it doesn't matter. The species is not viable and will end, one way or another. Read Earth, the book. I have no intention of comforting. There is no comfort; there is no safety; there is very little hope. Fix what you can, ignore what you can't fix; have the sense to know what's which.
