6 ms·

I think the experience you've described mostly works out because the infrastructure has developed (or not developed) in conjunction with unreliable power. It wo

I think the experience you've described mostly works out because the infrastructure has developed (or not developed) in conjunction with unreliable power. It would be a pretty different story in a dense US city: there are no wells to draw from, no simplified infrastructure designed to operate with minimum power or water, etc. In other words: mature infrastructure is both our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Countries that haven't as fully established their dependence on large-scale public infrastructure won't suffer as badly under a grid collapse.

meitham 4y ago
From Iraq, we went from zero power cuts in decades to no power at all within two weeks in the gulf war in 90, as NATO countries attacked all our civilian power stations. Life became horrible but we adapted. In some cases there were fights between people no different than the fights you saw in western countries over toilet rolls during covid, but I wouldn’t say it was a total society collapse. People will always find a way to adapt.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Iraq's pre-war HDI was 0.560[1]. The US's in the same year was 0.865[2]. People will indeed always find a way to adapt! But I think these comparisons are fundamentally suspect: there really hasn't been think kind of mass-scale infrastructure collapse in a country nearly remotely developed as the US (or Canada, or the EU). The closest thing would probably be the war in Ukraine, and even there the infrastructure failures are relatively localized. [1]: https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/iraq https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/iraq [2]: https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/usa https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/usa
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  not to sound all propagandist but russia attacking ukraine infra is "bad" but NATO attacking iraq is "collateral damage".
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    Similarly I do not like authoritarians and therefore feel very bad for North Korean citizens. However I don’t understand why they are not allowed (or Iran, or any country) to build their own nuclear weapons. Many countries have nukes - what is their right to have them? Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? I wish nukes would go away, but morally speaking if one country can have them then all countries can have them. It’s power politics after that.
    - chii 4y ago
      > Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? not really. If you didn't already have nukes, but your regime is much against the west, i'd argue that it is the right thing for the west to deny it from them. I am attaching no moral argument to this - simply a practical, utilitarian argument. The reason russia has free reign to invade ukraine is _because_ they have nukes. Iraq invaded Kuwait just the same, but was pressed back in a war - imagine if they did have nukes; it would mean that Iraq could've acted with impunity, and they'd control all of the oil resources that was Kuwaits'.
      - monero-xmr 4y ago
        I agree from a western perspective. In a power struggle of west vs. various eastern alliances, it is in the west’s interest to prevent the spread of nukes. From a plain and simple moral perspective, IMO every country has the right to build them. Preventing that is about what team you are on rather than morals.
        snickerer 4y ago
        It is a mistake to think in moral categories regarding to international politics. Morale is something a group-in-power uses to control (or influence) the public. Like fear, greed, or compassion. Morale is not a basis for political decisions or political analysis. Every country's ruler wants nuclear weapons. And every ruler wants the other rulers not to have the bomb at the same time. To force the others not to develop the bomb, you must put pressure on them. A good way to put pressure is... to have the bomb.
- synergyS 4y ago
  Similar story here - when NATO bombed Serbia (we were part of Yugoslavia in 1999) we had similar experience. We had 4 hour blackouts per day, not more luckily, as everyone had a lot of frozen food that could go bad if blackouts were longer.

meitham 4y ago

From Iraq, we went from zero power cuts in decades to no power at all within two weeks in the gulf war in 90, as NATO countries attacked all our civilian power stations. Life became horrible but we adapted. In some cases there were fights between people no different than the fights you saw in western countries over toilet rolls during covid, but I wouldn’t say it was a total society collapse. People will always find a way to adapt.

woodruffw 4y ago
Iraq's pre-war HDI was 0.560[1]. The US's in the same year was 0.865[2]. People will indeed always find a way to adapt! But I think these comparisons are fundamentally suspect: there really hasn't been think kind of mass-scale infrastructure collapse in a country nearly remotely developed as the US (or Canada, or the EU). The closest thing would probably be the war in Ukraine, and even there the infrastructure failures are relatively localized. [1]: https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/iraq https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/iraq [2]: https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/usa https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/usa
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
not to sound all propagandist but russia attacking ukraine infra is "bad" but NATO attacking iraq is "collateral damage".
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  Similarly I do not like authoritarians and therefore feel very bad for North Korean citizens. However I don’t understand why they are not allowed (or Iran, or any country) to build their own nuclear weapons. Many countries have nukes - what is their right to have them? Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? I wish nukes would go away, but morally speaking if one country can have them then all countries can have them. It’s power politics after that.
  - chii 4y ago
    > Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? not really. If you didn't already have nukes, but your regime is much against the west, i'd argue that it is the right thing for the west to deny it from them. I am attaching no moral argument to this - simply a practical, utilitarian argument. The reason russia has free reign to invade ukraine is _because_ they have nukes. Iraq invaded Kuwait just the same, but was pressed back in a war - imagine if they did have nukes; it would mean that Iraq could've acted with impunity, and they'd control all of the oil resources that was Kuwaits'.
    - monero-xmr 4y ago
      I agree from a western perspective. In a power struggle of west vs. various eastern alliances, it is in the west’s interest to prevent the spread of nukes. From a plain and simple moral perspective, IMO every country has the right to build them. Preventing that is about what team you are on rather than morals.
      - snickerer 4y ago
        It is a mistake to think in moral categories regarding to international politics. Morale is something a group-in-power uses to control (or influence) the public. Like fear, greed, or compassion. Morale is not a basis for political decisions or political analysis. Every country's ruler wants nuclear weapons. And every ruler wants the other rulers not to have the bomb at the same time. To force the others not to develop the bomb, you must put pressure on them. A good way to put pressure is... to have the bomb.
synergyS 4y ago
Similar story here - when NATO bombed Serbia (we were part of Yugoslavia in 1999) we had similar experience. We had 4 hour blackouts per day, not more luckily, as everyone had a lot of frozen food that could go bad if blackouts were longer.