16 ms·
Reducing the risk of nuclear war should be a key concern of our generation
- PaulHoule 5y agoReducing CO2 emissions are a key concern for our generation, and hobbling nuclear power because we're afraid of nuclear weapons proliferation is a great way to keep burning fossil fuels and keep CO2 emissions high.
- smate 5y agoI don't think the main opposers of nuclear power are afraid of it because of weapons. The nuclear critics I have spoken to, or read, have mostly talked about: 1.) The very slim chance of a very devastating incident 2.) The difficulties of storing burnt out fuel modules (this could include protecting them from dangerous too, as used modules could be used to create a dirty bomb) 3.) The economic problems with highly centralized power grids. I am definitely not an expert though, and also I am not necessarily against nuclear, I just don't think that weapons of mass destruction are the main concern around nuclear power plants (although they are a part of it).
- sdoering 5y agoAdditionally there is the argument of costs. Nuclear was feasible while governments heavily subsidized nucular (sorry couldn't resist). Either by not pricing in the cost for storage of burned fuel or for example insurance against costs of cleanup in case of an accident. As with oil, coal or gas - externalities were not factored in and payed for by society. Just not with the price per kWh. While the gains were privatized. So no. While somewhat cleaner nuclear power actually isn't a viable solution. Neither ecological nor economically from a society's standpoint.
- omgJustTest 5y agoCosts for nuclear are largely two fold: (1) Capital intensive construction (on the order of >$5 billion) (2) Communities can revoke operating permits very near the end of completion. Subsidies are provided to coal / natural gas in the same proportion of generation capacity within the US. "Renewables" are subsidized at 10x other sources.
- PaulHoule 5y agoThe #1 problem with economics of nuclear power is the steam turbine that is attached to the reactor. They quit building coal burning power plants at the same time they quit building nuclear plants because those are coupled to steam turbines and gas turbines with an order of magnitude less capital cost became available. Economically viable nuclear power plants for the future will require liquid metal, liquid salt, or gas cooling. Likely these will also involve some innovation in fuel processing. Research on advanced nuclear energy was stopped almost completely in 1977 in response to racist nuclear proliferation fears.
- foxyv 5y agoStating that nuclear is not economical now based on bespoke US plants that are 50+ years old is similar to the arguments against solar in the 80s and 90s. It can be SO much cheaper if properly managed. Especially as the technology is explored properly. Nuclear can be extremely cost effective. France is currently generating 70% of their power using nuclear and is significantly cheaper than US nuclear power seeing wholesale prices around 5 cents per kWh. US just has stupid expensive plants with 100% unique parts and old designs. This is why French consumers are paying 1/3 as much as Germans. In addition France is burning their waste in breeders. You can blame most of the costs and problems of Nuclear in the US with an obsession over protecting private interests. Especially Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas companies. Meanwhile, nationalized energy companies in France are making us all look like idiots.
- lamontcg 5y agoThe french costs keep going up. The problem with nuclear is that smart people sit around thinking up all the 1% ways that the plant could meltdown and making iterative changes to designs to mitigate them. Managers generally approve them since its better not to be the person making the call on something that caused a meltdown as long as the increase in the cost is marginal. The sum total of a lot of marginal increases in the cost though is a negative learning curve. Solar and wind don't have this because nobody worries about a solar plant blowing up and contaminating the surrounding countryside and cost a trillion dollars to clean up, so it keeps getting cheaper.
- foxyv 5y agoEven with increases in costs for French nuclear, they are still nowhere near being un-profitable. They are definitely having trouble commissioning new plants now that political interests are lining up against new Nuclear capability. They have even had to start authorizing coal plants to increase energy production due to lack of supply to meet demand.
- jokethrowaway 5y agoReplying to my sibling: solar got cheap because China decided to be rid of pollution and started mass producing. There have been also some improvements on the research side but China was the largest effect.
- hanniabu 5y agoRE: #1, My issue is with the people component. Sure you can have all these safe guards but eventually somebody makes the decision for profit over safety, and then it happens again, and again, and eventually there's no more safety error left and a disaster happens. If you think this is unrealistic, it's currently happening in the US.
- fdgsdfogijq 5y agoThis opinion is actually what is causing the current Ukrainian crises. Politicians in American and Europe deprioritized carbon energy so as to boost green energy, which left us vulnerable to an attack from Russia. Very poor geopolitical thinking
- ceejayoz 5y agoRussia's leverage over Europe comes from a European reliance on carbon energy.
- PaulHoule 5y agoGermany has made the mistake of backing out of nuclear energy.
- ceejayoz 5y agoI was unaware nuclear plants ran on carbon. The claim upthread was "American and Europe deprioritized carbon energy". Germany has also grown green energy dramatically faster than they've reduced nuclear. It's a pity they didn't get a couple more years on it; I suspect that plays into Putin's timeline a bit.
- cwp 5y agoIt's poor thinking even if you leave geopolitics out of it. Solar power in Germany is a terrible idea from first principals. Wind is a bit better, but there's not enough energy there to power the country. A legit criticism of nuclear power is that it's expensive to build plants, but Germany is shutting down plants that have already been built. The net result, they're burning a lot of lignite and imported natural gas. The result, higher energy costs and much higher carbon emissions. For genuine environmentalists it's a disaster.
- ceejayoz 5y agoPer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany, Germany currently gets ~30% from wind and 10% from solar in 2020. You're saying at 40% of current energy needs they've entirely maxed out Germany's solar and wind potential? That there's no more acreage left for new panels and turbines?
- newsclues 5y agoWhy reduce emissions if we are going to have a nuclear war? If all countries with nuclear weapons agree to convert all warheads into nuclear fuel, we could power humanity, reduce CO2, and eliminate the threat of nuclear armageddon.
- PaulHoule 5y agoSee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
- TaylorAlexander 5y agoThis is why I am so excited about Commonwealth Fusion Systems[1] and their SPARC reactor. By using newer high temperature superconducting magnets they can make a fusion reactor with the same Q gain as ITER that is 1/10th the size. Using a tokamak means well understood physics and engineering challenges. They recently proved their magnets work and got 1.8 billion dollars in funding. They believe they can demonstrate the SPARC reactor with net energy gain by 2025 and build the larger ARC reactor by 2030. Maybe it will take a little longer but I’m optimistic it will not fail. My big issues with nuclear fission are the powerful nuclear-capable government required to manage the reactors, the risk of catastrophic meltdown and the national security target reactors become. Fusion just needs duterium from seawater and can’t melt down. [1] https://cfs.energy/technology https://cfs.energy/technology
- noncoml 5y agoWhy not ban nuclear weapons all together? I know it may look naive at first, but intelligence services are super advanced these days. If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately.
- barelysapient 5y agoHow would such a thing even be enforced?
- infamouscow 5y ago> intelligence services are super advanced these days If that were true, how do you reconcile every Western intelligence agency being 100% wrong about the likelihood of Russia invading Ukraine?
- dahdum 5y agoThe US/UK had been sounding the alarm for several weeks before it happened.
- dktoao 5y agoReally? They were basically pre-cog on that front. Everything they said was going to happen happened when they said it was going to happen. At least from the layman's perspective of what intelligence they released to the public. Which there was a lot of. Who the heck is saying this? RT? Fox News?
- Aeolos 5y agoI don't know if we were reading the same media, but I was surprised by how _accurate_ the invasion predictions were. Down to the day of the invasion, it was as if the western intelligence services were two steps ahead throughout the build up and actual invasion, dispelling the Russian misinformation campaign in real time.
- dr_dshiv 5y agoHere’s the litany of strategists predicting it: https://mobile.twitter.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1498491107902062592 https://mobile.twitter.com/rnaudbertrand/status/149849110790...
- hackersword 5y agoGenX 80's kid with Deja Vu ....
- droopyEyelids 5y ago
- nicolasmelo12 5y agoIt's because USA knows the nuclear power of Russia that both countries doesn't go in conflict directly. It seems strange, but because you can nuke me, and i can nuke you, we need to live peacefully for good or for worse. I know that Ukraine is in a bad situation, but you think this would happen if Ukraine had nuclear power? Actually, the United States wanted Ukraine to give up on their nuclear weapons. Actually because nations have the power to destroy humanity multiple times with their arsenal we live in a more peaceful world (although there are multiple wars, none of them compare to WW2 or WW1, there's a good video from Kurzgesagt on that topic.)
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoUkraine does not have nuclear weapons because they gave them back to Russia in exchange for guarantees about their territorial sovereignty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
- endisneigh 5y agoDidn’t other countries say they’d have ukraines back if something like this happen though?
- jerlam 5y agoThe wording is more akin to "we won't attack", not "we will defend". Two of the signatories are Russia and Belarus.
- bpodgursky 5y agoYes, the US and the UK promised to protect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for disarmament. (we didn't) Edit: just look it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
- sklargh 5y agoMy plan for nuclear war survival is to not.
- hackersword 5y agoWhen I was younger, watching post apocalyptic shows and movies made me think/fantasize what I would do to survive in such situations (and usually rate myself pretty well in being able to survive). Now, I'm much more "F** that S**" and would take a quick painless death over long drawn out misery.
- Noos 5y agoThose movies were lying to make a point; they were trying to terrify people and succeeded, not trying to make them survive if it actually happened. It's rare that you would see a thoughtful film about surviving and rebuilding the world after it, because it is beyond the scope of film and doesn't have the hook that fear brings. Don't take things too seriously. Remember all the movies about the internet in the 1990s.
- moonchrome 5y agoWhy ? Even if USA/Europe/Russia and China nuke themselves to oblivion that's all northern hemisphere. I'm sure the atmosphere would be fucked up for a while but after that ? Would Australia/NZ/South Africa/Argentina etc. be livable ? After how long ?
- panax 5y agoThis seems to be an attitude more prevalent in the US, to simply assume that it the outcome of this is too horrible and that there is no point in trying. It is actually quite possible to survive and your chances can be greatly improved especially with a little planning and if you read this: https://www.oism.org/nwss/ https://www.oism.org/nwss/
- sklargh 5y agoJust because you can improve your chances of surviving a nuclear exchange doesn’t mean it’s desirable. I don’t want to live through the subsequent famines and slow death of everyone I know and love. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/what-the-science-says-could-humans-survive-a-nuclear-war-between-nato-and-russia/ https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/what-the...
- darzu 5y agoI'm a little confused about how nuclear winter works esp. in relation to climate change, maybe someone here can enlighten me. The article states: "large columns of smoke and soot rise up [...] to the stratosphere. There it [...] blocks the sun [...] The nuclear winter [...] is expected to lead to temperature declines of 20 or even 30 degrees Celsius (60–86° F)" So "smoke and soot" placed in the stratosphere lowers the earth's temperature, yet C02 in the atmosphere raises earth's temperature? Why? Follow up naive question: can we strategically place smoke in the stratosphere to counter global warming? What are the consequences of that?
- chiefalchemist 5y agoThere's been discussion of trying to alter the atmosphere to lower the earth's temperature. In theory, I suppose, it's possible. The reality is, humans too often over-estimate their understanding and then muck X or Y up even more. Given that we're talking about a scale encompassing the whole planet and the future there of...well, you see it's risky.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y agoMy understanding is that CO2 absorbs long-wavelength infrared energy and doesn't stop the rest of the radiation/light from hitting Earth's surface, while smoke and soot, being opaque, partially prevents the light from reaching the surface and reflects the energy back into space.
- yed 5y agoCO2 is transparent to visible light but not to infrared, so it allows sunlight to heat the surface of the earth but impedes its cooling. Smoke and soot is not transparent, so it blocks sunlight from heating the surface in the first place.
- ip26 5y agoParticles are reflective to incoming visible light, while CO2 is transparent to incoming visible light but opaque to infrared radiation (heat).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- chaostheory 5y agoNuclear weapons are historically proven deterrents that have kept the peace. Conventional war is much worse. It’s both longer and far more brutal.
- mwattsun 5y agoI'm having flashbacks to the early 80's thinking about the American submarine sailors on high alert right now. I served on the USS G. W. Carver SSBN 656, which had 16 of Poseidon missiles. Each had 10 warheads for a total of 160 bombs that could target individual cities or obliterate a single Russian city like an atomic bomb shotgun blast. Like then, I pray now that nukes will never be launched. Also like then, I have nothing against the Russian people. Once the people in charge design a world like this, we are all bit players and victims of it. GW Carver Poseidon C-3 missiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmgY85tLdAY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmgY85tLdAY
- lordnacho 5y agoDid it make you think about what it would look like if the war happened? Would you fire the missiles if you knew it had started? Make the world unlivable for Russian kids? Effectively there's no US anymore, do you still follow the orders?
- mwattsun 5y agoI had a buddy who was a launch control tech. I asked him these same questions. He said the launch control officer had a .45 pistol to encourage him to initiate the launch sequence if he hesitated. I can't confirm this, but he was a morose person, not one to joke around.
- ASalazarMX 5y agoSo the opening scene of Wargames is not pure fiction? I always thought if was fictional because a drill surely wouldn't require to actually shoot an uncooperative officer, and an unloaded/loaded with blanks gun would give the test away.
- thatguy0900 5y agoI wonder whose gun is pointed at the officer
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
- fabian2k 5y agoMAD only works if both sides are rational, and it is pretty clear that the major nuclear powers are lead by deeply irrational and unstable persons at times. But I also see no plausible way at all to ever get rid of nuclear weapons. They are just too effective as a deterrent.
- 2bitencryption 5y agoThere's an extra layer of complexity here. One requirement for MAD to work is two key properties of ICBMs: * their launch is easily detectable * they take a long time to reach the target, long enough to respond with your own ICBMs this incentivizes both sides to avoid a launch. It's like two people, each locked in a separate room, each with a button that will kill the other person. But when you push the button, the other person is notified, and they are not killed until after a 10-min countdown. This gives them 10minutes to respond on spite. So if you push your button, consider yourself dead. But what if the buttons were instantaneous, with no delay? Or what if the buttons did not trigger an alert in the other room? Your only option for self-preservation is to push your button immediately. Hyper glide entry nukes. If you can't detect them, and there's no warning, your only option is to strike first. That's the fear, anyway.
- michaelt 5y agoThere are nuclear-armed submarines that just hide 24/7 so even if their home country is wiped out in a sneak attack, they can launch in revenge.
- axg11 5y agoIf you can't detect them, perhaps that increases the incentive to never even threaten the use of your own nuclear weapons? After all, a threat would encourage your (potential) enemies to strike first.
- dahdum 5y ago> It is therefore important to see that there are additional ways that can reduce the chance of the world suffering the horrors of nuclear war. The article doesn’t note perhaps the most common and likely way the world reduces that chance, appeasement. If not for the remarkable fight of the Ukrainians and logistical failures of Russia, the West would already have washed their hands of it after passing weak sanctions and token condemnation.
- empiricus 5y agoThe worlds you live in is not world you think it is.
- chiefalchemist 5y agoReducing war - full stop - would make even better sense. Considering the fact that most wars - stated or not - are about natural resources (and the control there of), if these war wefforts (i.e., lives, money, time, etc.) were channeled into productive things, there would be plenty to go around. The USA alone has an annual DoD budget close to three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Even if that was cut in half, that frees up resources for good (e.g., nuclear fusion).
- landemva 5y agoWell said. When will USA exit NATO, allow Europe to pay for it's own defense, and spend those funds on beneficial projects at home?
- cracrecry 5y ago>and spend those funds on beneficial projects at home? What funds? The US is what it is because it forces the world to buy dollars. If a European country wants to buy gas from Saudi Arabia, the deal must be done is dollars. Why? Because the US forces that to happen, by force. The moment the US stops using military force outside their borders, the world does not need dollars anymore, and the US becomes way poorer, because they can not print dollars anymore.
- chiefalchemist 5y agoPrinting dollars doesn't create wealth. Print money (fiat) devalues that currency. Ron Paul (per End The Fed) would say that it's the unthrottled printing of dollars than enables the USA's warmongering.
- vbezhenar 5y agoI wonder if we will colonize Moon, Mars, establish some space colonies. Say 200 years from now. Will there be new nukes aimed at every Mars settlement just in case? At first I thought that space expansion will be our insurance from Earth nuclear war. But probably people never change. I guess we need new ultimate defense against nuclear bombs. May be some intercepting drones which are cheap and impossible to avoid. That might render those nukes useless.
- jl6 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
- sour-taste 5y agoThis is a major plot point in the show/book The Expanse. Very worth checking out. The major point made in the story is that putting people in space just changes the types of conflicts we have, it won't eliminate them.
- shane_b 5y agothis thread is full of hypotheticals and blaming irrational actors for fear of nukes. the only country to drop nukes on enemies is the US. our fear of enemies using nukes has set us back half a century in energy. why do we focus on hypotheticals when there’s no evidence for 80 years?
- function_seven 5y ago> this thread is full of hypotheticals and blaming irrational actors for fear of nukes. I think it's a by-definition thing at this point, that if a nuclear war occurs it will be due to irrational actors. The only rational thing to do with nukes is not use them. > the only country to drop nukes on enemies is the US True, the first time they were used in warfare was by the US in 1945. There's no reason to think that's the end of the list. > our fear of enemies using nukes has set us back half a century in energy. I don't understand this. What nuclear power plants have not been built, due to fears of thermonuclear weapons? I'm sure there are a few instances (i.e. Iran), but the vast majority of sluggish nuclear power plant building is due to local opposition for reasons both misguided and not. > why do we focus on hypotheticals when there’s no evidence for 80 years? Well, because there's been nothing to sample in the extremely short time-span of 80 years! 80 years isn't even a century. It's minuscule in terms of human history. We've gone longer than that between major pandemics, volcanic eruptions that cause a never-ending winter. Solar flares that destroy all electrical grids, etc. Existential events don't happen every day ya know :)
- shane_b 5y ago> I think it's a by-definition thing at this point, that if a nuclear war occurs it will be due to irrational actors. The only rational thing to do with nukes is not use them. > There's no reason to think that's the end of the list. i agree with both. my point is rational/irrational actor has nothing to do with it. i think retaliation would be irrational but many would make a case otherwise. a case could be made for initiating conflict as well if weighing against hypothetical lives saved. that's frequently how ww2 usage is justified. > What nuclear power plants have not been built, due to fears of thermonuclear weapons? fair point. while i agree there is a distinction between weapons and energy, i think the branding applies to both. also, if we didn't fear nukes in the wrong hands, every country would have the tech for energy. wikipedia says 32 countries have nuclear power plants. i understand our fear, but i'd say it's also why nuclear power isn't ubiquitous. > Well, because there's been nothing to sample in the extremely short time-span of 80 years! absolutely. very short time. there were ample opportunities to use nukes in warfare even in that short time. my comments were focusing on the fact we use hypotheticals of irrational actors when the only evidence we have is counter. there's no telling what happens going forward.
- pelasaco 5y agoThe generation of Putin, Lukashenko and all Sovietic widow/Tyrant wannabe should die soon. We have to move away from that. Otherwise we are just the angry chimps that are able to lie and use smartphones.
- logicalmonster 5y agoPerhaps the key concern of our generation should be learning to avoid emotional overreaction to the media's business model of fear-porn and outrage-porn for clicks and shares. Depending on where we are in the news cycle, you might have anything from a mass shooting, to treatment of economic migrants, to Covid, to climate change, to cops shooting black people, to war, to illegal immigration, to terrorism, to white supremacy, to drugs, etc labeled as THE CRITICAL ISSUE WE MUST TACKLE FOR HUMANITY NOW. We went from mass societal panic about Covid to mass societal panic about Ukraine basically without skipping a beat and few people notice how their energy was redirected so seamlessly. How many people gave a shit about past Russian incursions into Ukraine or Georgia for land? The rest of the world basically never gave a shit about that only because the media never told them that they had to care about that. It's absurd how much influence the media has over people who are only overly concerned about whether they maintain acceptable public opinions or not.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- fabian2k 5y agoWe have a major war on our doorstep, a humanitarian catastrophe and very likely millions of refugees. That is certainly a real cause for worry.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- madacol 5y agoThe threat/warning Putin said after invading is very hard to dismiss. That was a turning point in my head. I tried to think over and over where was he drawing the line that he wouldn't cross and I got too uncomfortable with my imagination
- Jeff_Brown 5y agoThere's no contradiction between thinking fear porn is bad and thinking nuclear war is a real and horrible risk.
- rootusrootus 5y agoOne thing that worries me particularly about the current situation is how calculating Putin is, and how little regard he has for the US. He expected us to just knuckle under and take it when he invaded Ukraine, like we have done in the past. So, what does he think about our resolve to use nuclear weapons? MAD only works as a deterrent if everyone is convinced the other side will follow through. Nuclear weapons are such a terrible weapon, I personally believe some politicians would not have the courage (or insanity) to push the button when they must, if they think the game is already lost either way. Maybe Putin thinks he can use nukes as long as they don't hit someone in NATO. I don't know what goes through his mind, but I do know that nuclear weapons are just about the one single thing humanity has ever created that is unambiguously evil. If they are ever used again (and I expect eventually they will be), I hope whomever lives through the experience has the courage to eliminate any remaining ones through whatever means necessary, and then institutes monitoring sufficient to prevent them ever being created again.
- cracrecry 5y ago>One thing that worries me particularly about the current situation is how calculating Putin is, and how little regard he has for the US. I will say it is the other way around. The US considered Russia "done" and expanded NATO without concern about Russia. It was the US the one that broke the deal of preserving the status quo. That was extremely evident when the US started maneuvering to take Sevastopol from Russia(via Maidan coup d'etat supported by the US), something extremely dangerous as Russia could not let that happen as we have seen.
- rootusrootus 5y agoRussia could join NATO, too. Putin is the guy who decided it was him against the world.
- thecrumb 5y agoI have a feeling the earth will melt down due to our incompetence by itself before we ever have the opportunity to do it with nukes.
- fswd 5y ago...
- MintsJohn 5y agoStop spreading nonsense, NATO (planning on) arming Ukraine with nukes is Russian propaganda, not happening, never happening, very much not the reasob for the Russian invasion
- dukeofdoom 5y agoZuckerberg election meddling has consequences. Would any of this be even happening if a more Rusia friendly administration was still in charge.
- c141charlie 5y agoI’m kinda getting tired of journalists and politicians who make obvious statements like “Reducing the risk of nuclear war should be a key concern.” Duh! We already know that.
- cwp 5y agoYou'd think. But there are a lot of people talking about "doing more" to help Ukraine. The idea of a no-fly zone is being bandied about. They wave away the nuclear concern while advocating shooting down Russian planes (killing the pilots) and destroying anti-aircraft weapons (killing the soldiers operating them) in Ukraine and just over the border in Belarus and Russia. People are asking if we should "do nothing" while a 40-mile column of troops and equipment is heading for Kyiv. And by "people" I don't mean randos on Twitter or even media personalities. I mean sitting US Senators[1] and former NATO commanders[2]. [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/republican-senator-urges-u-s-to-impose-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine/ [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/27/breedlove-nato-commander-russia-ukraine-war/
- crmd 5y agoUnlike during the Cold War, the probability of a surprise strategic nuclear attack from any side is virtually zero. The most probable path to a civilization-ending strategic nuclear exchange starts with a conventional war that escalates with the use of a small, tactical battlefield nuclear weapon, that escalates further into a strategic counterforce (air force bases) and then countervalue (New York City, Los Angeles, etc) exchange. I don’t know how to “reduce the risk of nuclear war” other than giving each nuclear power what it wants - the freedom to exercise regional hegemony. This means the US letting Russia dominate Eurasia and reassemble the Soviet Union, and letting China dominate Asia. The betrayal and suffering that would cause for hundreds of millions of humans from Taiwan and Japan to Lithuania and Romania is frankly unconscionable.
- cmurf 5y agoThis is completely inconsistent with the U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions, is a return to the Cold War at best and at worst demands we forget everything we learned from WW1 and 2, sweeping all of that history aside in an apparent attempt to repeat it. Allowing nuclear countries to threaten the use of nukes in order to successfully commit atrocities with conventional weapons is not distinguishable from "might makes right". The U.N. charter and Geneva Conventions were created to avoid those very things. Setting them aside, in particular without a replacement, does everything possible to put us on the path to another world war. Everything starts to unravel.
- crmd 5y agoI agree and would argue further that it would embolden belligerent aspirational regional hegemons such as Iran, and scare vulnerable US allies such as Japan and Saudi Arabia into to accelerating their nuclear weapons aspirations. TL;DR appeasing current nuclear powers will greatly accelerate proliferation and paradoxically increase the risk of nuclear war. Quite the conundrum…
- euroderf 5y agoIn this vein, the film to watch is Failsafe. An eye for an eye, and full stop.
- dade_ 5y agoInspired by recent events, I re-watched 'Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb'. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 Vladimir Putin watched the movie with Oliver Stone. Putin said not much has changed, except the situation is more dangerous today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxls8uC4DA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxls8uC4DA Discussing the Ukraine war the other day, I brought up the movie and learned that people have no idea what MAD is. It is possible that the only thing more insane about the MAD doctrine is that people living under it have no idea they do. What a world we live in!
- cmurf 5y agoQuite a lot of people now have no understanding of the cold war either, considering it old history at best. It is more relevant right now than what's happened between 1991 up until last week. Even if you were paying attention in 2009 and 2014 and saw those events as dress rehearsals for last week, it's still shocking how a founding member of the U.N., a permanent member of the Security Council, has allowed romatic notions and fear of encroaching democracy end his kleptocracy into the biggest risk to returning us right back to the cold war. And yes, it's probably true that Cold War 2.0 will be more dangerous and expensive than before. This will have a disproportionate cost, but everyone will pay in one form or another.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- em3rgent0rdr 5y agoIt's already a key concern. Still there other key concerns such as not having democracies taken over by dictatorships.
- cmurf 5y agoThe sad likely outcome is Russia will kill enough people in Ukraine until they submit. Russia has a long history of indiscriminate massive violence, even against its own. What do we do about it? In my view Russia is outside the U.N. charter and Geneva Convention, the multilateral system for peaceful resolution of disputes. And they should not profit at all until they leave every inch of Ukraine and pay restitution. Until they do that, they are out of the the global free trade system. Sanctions should be a complete and total. And it will take time to get there because the spigot can't be turned off over night. By extension I think it is necessary to completely cut off from global free trade any country that continues to to business with Russia. Every single dollar I spend on a product in country A or B who then does business with Russia, is a resource in the pocket of Putin to drop bombs on Ukrainians today and Europe, or even America, tomorrow. His word is worth less than nothing. He has renegged on all of the most important international agreements of this time. We have to stop looking for cheap oil and gas as the excuse for weakening the best thing the world has invented so far, however imperfect it is. And that's our obligations under the agreements signed after the last world wars. No amount of profit and comfort is worth that. This is lost on too many people who think it is. They think it's acceptable to come out on top and it will be just the peons who will suffer, and that's OK with them. Well FUCK those people.
- modzu 5y agosince 1945
- mrkramer 5y agoI thought it was a key concern of the last generation not our. Until recently our key concerns were climate change and global poverty but now all of a sudden we could have nuclear war. I guess that escalated quickly without any reasonable explanation.
- avastmick 5y agoAs the Russian military build-up and invasion of Ukraine has unfolded, I have spent more time thinking about how much humanity tolerates the concentration of significant power (or its proxy, extreme wealth) in small groups of individuals. For me, tackling this issue should be the key concern of our generation. The smaller the set and the greater the power the set holds, the higher the risk of bad outcomes. The set is composed from human beings, therefore mental health, extremist or nihilistic tendencies will negatively affect the outcomes. Nuclear war is an existentially threatening outcome, but only one of many whose likelihood is determined by a small group of (fragile) individuals. Why do people here think that historically the personality cult of leadership became so prevalent? And why are the existential risks of power concentration still so accepted given the evidence we see right in front of us?