6 ms·

Too depressing to read. I spent my childhood in the 1970s and 1980s terrified of nuclear war. I’m not going to do that again. If vile, selfish, psychopathic

Too depressing to read. I spent my childhood in the 1970s and 1980s terrified of nuclear war. I’m not going to do that again. If vile, selfish, psychopathic maniacs make the decision to end the world then so be it. It'll prove for certain that humanity doesn’t deserve the world anyway, the rest of life on earth is better off without us. I’m not going to give them my happiness and life. They’ll have to take it.

jdsnape 4y ago
I came across this recently by CS Lewis which I thought said it well: “In one way we think a great deal too much of the atomic bomb. ‘How are we to live in an atomic age?’ I am tempted to reply: ‘Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.’ In other words, do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation. Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways. We had, indeed, one very great advantage over our ancestors—anesthetics; but we have that still. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty. This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.”
- perilunar 4y ago
  The difference being that those other causes of death may kill you, and maybe your family and friends if you are really unlucky, but they won't destroy everything else you love. Our own mortality is not the issue here.
  - imagine99 4y ago
    Adopting an attitude similar to Tom Lehrer in "We will all go together when we go" [1] may provide some peace of mind in this case. In any event, here is a rousing, uplifting song which is guaranteed to cheer you up: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
- 3pt14159 4y ago
  Small, playful quibble: Since you're quoting Lewis and mentioning prayer, it's at least debatable whether we're all going to die, depending on your understanding of 1 Thessalonians 4 and how it relates to John 12 and other parts. :) But I agree with you. Arms control is useful and people should work on it, but for those that don't feel called to worrying about nuclear war isn't productive.
azangru 4y ago
> If vile, selfish, psychopathic maniacs make the decision to end the world then so be it. I am afraid it's not just the vile selfish psychopathic maniacs, but also the general population, incensed by the media. For example, one might have thought that if the avoidance of a nuclear war were people's priority number one, then the Western media (supposing Russia is the lost cause) would have demanded, every day and from every corner, that the leaders of their countries must avoid any escalatory steps regarding the ongoing conflict in the Eastern Europe. That people would be marching on the streets with slogans demanding restraint. But that's not what is happening. The voices repeatedly cautioning their audience about the danger of a nuclear war are few and far between — Tulsi, Tucker, Eric Weinstein — and they are treated as traitorous or crazy.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Gaslighting is now a favorite tactic of those who control these levers.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dandanua 4y ago
  What's your response to a country that invades you and threatens nuclear strikes?
  - d0mine 4y ago
    The first step would be to not allow NATO puppet to control your country. Compare the NATO military capabilities vs. Russia, then tell me who is the aggressor (how much does NATO moved East since USSR collapse?) Don’t force the war for survival.
    - kibwen 4y ago
      NATO is not a threat to the survival of Russia, only to Russia's imperial ambitions. If Russia's neighbors did not feel threatened by Russia, then perhaps they would not feel the urge to join NATO. I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg. It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression". Is me locking my doors "aggression" against burglars?
BrandoElFollito 4y ago
Same here. I was a teenager in 1985 when Sting released "Russians". This song suck so much that I can barely listen to it even today. And this was in France, a country that was not that engaged in the child war on a day to day basis (at least for a 15 yo).

jdsnape 4y ago

I came across this recently by CS Lewis which I thought said it well: “In one way we think a great deal too much of the atomic bomb. ‘How are we to live in an atomic age?’ I am tempted to reply: ‘Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.’ In other words, do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation. Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways. We had, indeed, one very great advantage over our ancestors—anesthetics; but we have that still. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty. This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.”

perilunar 4y ago
The difference being that those other causes of death may kill you, and maybe your family and friends if you are really unlucky, but they won't destroy everything else you love. Our own mortality is not the issue here.
- imagine99 4y ago
  Adopting an attitude similar to Tom Lehrer in "We will all go together when we go" [1] may provide some peace of mind in this case. In any event, here is a rousing, uplifting song which is guaranteed to cheer you up: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
3pt14159 4y ago
Small, playful quibble: Since you're quoting Lewis and mentioning prayer, it's at least debatable whether we're all going to die, depending on your understanding of 1 Thessalonians 4 and how it relates to John 12 and other parts. :) But I agree with you. Arms control is useful and people should work on it, but for those that don't feel called to worrying about nuclear war isn't productive.

azangru 4y ago

> If vile, selfish, psychopathic maniacs make the decision to end the world then so be it. I am afraid it's not just the vile selfish psychopathic maniacs, but also the general population, incensed by the media. For example, one might have thought that if the avoidance of a nuclear war were people's priority number one, then the Western media (supposing Russia is the lost cause) would have demanded, every day and from every corner, that the leaders of their countries must avoid any escalatory steps regarding the ongoing conflict in the Eastern Europe. That people would be marching on the streets with slogans demanding restraint. But that's not what is happening. The voices repeatedly cautioning their audience about the danger of a nuclear war are few and far between — Tulsi, Tucker, Eric Weinstein — and they are treated as traitorous or crazy.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
Gaslighting is now a favorite tactic of those who control these levers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dandanua 4y ago
What's your response to a country that invades you and threatens nuclear strikes?
- d0mine 4y ago
  The first step would be to not allow NATO puppet to control your country. Compare the NATO military capabilities vs. Russia, then tell me who is the aggressor (how much does NATO moved East since USSR collapse?) Don’t force the war for survival.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    NATO is not a threat to the survival of Russia, only to Russia's imperial ambitions. If Russia's neighbors did not feel threatened by Russia, then perhaps they would not feel the urge to join NATO. I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg. It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression". Is me locking my doors "aggression" against burglars?

BrandoElFollito 4y ago

Same here. I was a teenager in 1985 when Sting released "Russians". This song suck so much that I can barely listen to it even today. And this was in France, a country that was not that engaged in the child war on a day to day basis (at least for a 15 yo).