3 ms·

I’m not sure. I think we’ll leave or stay in the EU and it won’t make a tangible difference in the long run. Not in the way that say the internet, smartphones,

I’m not sure. I think we’ll leave or stay in the EU and it won’t make a tangible difference in the long run. Not in the way that say the internet, smartphones, antibiotics, nuclear weapons/power, quantum physics etc etc have made a difference to the world. MAD means we probably won’t have a major war any time soon, so we’ll be trading with the EU regardless, it’s all semanitics and minor politics.

vinceguidry 8y ago
MAD's not really a thing unfortunately. Nuclear winter was always a myth.
- freehunter 8y ago
  It doesn't take nuclear winter for countries to make the decision that "if I nuke them they will nuke me and that will be bad".
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    Yeah but that's just military tactics. As well just fly a bomber in and just drop a bomb on the capital. Same deterrent value.
hollerith 8y ago
>MAD means we probably won’t have a major war any time soon Was the Korean war a major war in your book? To the Korean people it was. In that war, the US's having nukes did not prevent North Korea from starting the war, did not prevent the Soviets from sending MIGs with Soviet pilots against the US army and air force and did not prevent China from sending a million soldiers.
- albertgoeswoof 8y ago
  From a euro centric perspective Korea is a proxy war. MAD blocks major conflict directly between two nuclear states or states with strong nuclear allies. It doesn’t prevent wars fought in other territories backed by nuclear states (eg Syria)
  - hollerith 8y ago
    China sends a million soldiers over its border with Korea with the usual instructions to try to kills as many soldiers of the enemy (composed mostly of US soldiers) as possible, and your reply is that that is not a major conflict between the US and China? Alternatively, do you claim that the fact that China at that time lacked nukes somehow emboldened China whereas if they had had nukes, they would have hesitated?
  - shripadk 8y ago
    Conventional wars have been fought in the past between two nuclear states. On example is that of the Kargil War[1] which was a major conflict between India and Pakistan. This was not fought in a different territory. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
noddy1 8y ago
The brexit issue is part of the bigger issue of the ongoing suicide of europe. Birmingham, where my father was born, is now majority non-anglosaxon, and with continued weak immigration controls europe will be majority african/arab/muslim in 50 years. There has never been an ethnic african science nobel prize winner, and despite 1.6 billion of the world's population being muslim, muslims have only won 2 nobel prizes in the sciences. So would changing the ethnic makeup of europe from ethnic european to majority african/arab/islamic alter the future of human civilization and progress to great detriment? Probably. You could argue that it is more important than any of the recent technical advances, because it may determine whether humanity pushes forward and progresses as a civilisation, or just doesn't.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
erikpukinskis 8y ago
It may not make an identifiable difference, but it will make a material difference. I’m not sure what tangible means in this context. What was the effect of Columbus sailing across the Atlantic? Maybe nothing! Maybe another sailor would have come 20 years later and American history would have played out just the same with different dates. Or would two decades of Aztec rule made a difference? Two more decades of Nagualism before the Church started eradicating the libraries and the language? Could books have been copied and hidden? Would political bodies have had more time to adapt? Were there tipping points on the horizon? Or was America in a steady state just waiting for Europe to come plunder it? Are forces at play which are so much bigger than individuals that nothing we do really matters? Personally, I think it all matters very much. History does not repeat itself, it’s a story built on every word that came before it. Brexit will frame everything that comes after it, and if we had swapped this decade for a different decade in UK history, we would have a very different story.

vinceguidry 8y ago

MAD's not really a thing unfortunately. Nuclear winter was always a myth.

freehunter 8y ago
It doesn't take nuclear winter for countries to make the decision that "if I nuke them they will nuke me and that will be bad".
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  Yeah but that's just military tactics. As well just fly a bomber in and just drop a bomb on the capital. Same deterrent value.

hollerith 8y ago

>MAD means we probably won’t have a major war any time soon Was the Korean war a major war in your book? To the Korean people it was. In that war, the US's having nukes did not prevent North Korea from starting the war, did not prevent the Soviets from sending MIGs with Soviet pilots against the US army and air force and did not prevent China from sending a million soldiers.

albertgoeswoof 8y ago
From a euro centric perspective Korea is a proxy war. MAD blocks major conflict directly between two nuclear states or states with strong nuclear allies. It doesn’t prevent wars fought in other territories backed by nuclear states (eg Syria)
- hollerith 8y ago
  China sends a million soldiers over its border with Korea with the usual instructions to try to kills as many soldiers of the enemy (composed mostly of US soldiers) as possible, and your reply is that that is not a major conflict between the US and China? Alternatively, do you claim that the fact that China at that time lacked nukes somehow emboldened China whereas if they had had nukes, they would have hesitated?
- shripadk 8y ago
  Conventional wars have been fought in the past between two nuclear states. On example is that of the Kargil War[1] which was a major conflict between India and Pakistan. This was not fought in a different territory. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

noddy1 8y ago

The brexit issue is part of the bigger issue of the ongoing suicide of europe. Birmingham, where my father was born, is now majority non-anglosaxon, and with continued weak immigration controls europe will be majority african/arab/muslim in 50 years. There has never been an ethnic african science nobel prize winner, and despite 1.6 billion of the world's population being muslim, muslims have only won 2 nobel prizes in the sciences. So would changing the ethnic makeup of europe from ethnic european to majority african/arab/islamic alter the future of human civilization and progress to great detriment? Probably. You could argue that it is more important than any of the recent technical advances, because it may determine whether humanity pushes forward and progresses as a civilisation, or just doesn't.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

erikpukinskis 8y ago

It may not make an identifiable difference, but it will make a material difference. I’m not sure what tangible means in this context. What was the effect of Columbus sailing across the Atlantic? Maybe nothing! Maybe another sailor would have come 20 years later and American history would have played out just the same with different dates. Or would two decades of Aztec rule made a difference? Two more decades of Nagualism before the Church started eradicating the libraries and the language? Could books have been copied and hidden? Would political bodies have had more time to adapt? Were there tipping points on the horizon? Or was America in a steady state just waiting for Europe to come plunder it? Are forces at play which are so much bigger than individuals that nothing we do really matters? Personally, I think it all matters very much. History does not repeat itself, it’s a story built on every word that came before it. Brexit will frame everything that comes after it, and if we had swapped this decade for a different decade in UK history, we would have a very different story.