5 ms·

This has been my retirement plan. Die in the inevitable large scale conflict, or live to reap the rewards of an empty world.

gregjor 3y ago
Americans have the least to worry about. Just like the last two world wars, the destruction will most likely happen in Europe and Asia. America doesn't fight wars on its own soil. Widespread nuclear war could happen but that doesn't leave any winners, and it seems clear both Russia and China have actual strategic goals rather than a mad desire to destroy everything.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Americans have the least to worry about. Just like the last two world wars, the destruction will most likely happen in Europe and Asia Don't underestimate the destabilising political consequences of losing a major war.
  - gregjor 3y ago
    Do you think those destabilizing political consequences would turn out worse than the political dysfunction America has already without losing a war? Since America almost certainly won't get attacked or invaded on its own soil, the US can't "lose" a war in the same sense Ukraine can, or Germany and Japan did. The US can lose face and influence, but I think we're used to that by now after Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. We "lost" all of those wars in some sense (failed to achieve stated strategic objectives) but didn't experience destabilizing political consequences.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Do you think those destabilizing political consequences would turn out worse than the political dysfunction America has already without losing a war? Yes. I haven't researched this extensively, but losers in even foreign wars have a tendency to suffer populist revolutions. (Think: Russia v. Japan, Argentina after losing the Falklands/Malvinas, the Ottomans.) We seem to have a deep-built anger response to leadership's martial failures. America forcibly losing e.g. its bases on an entire continent would credibly put not only America's leadership, but the entire system around them, into legitimate question. Instead of a minority calling for the Constitution to be terminated, we might have a brief majority. Hopefully not, though. A brilliant counterpoint being Rome's resilience against being repeatedly decimated (or worse) by Hannibal.
      - dysoco 3y ago
        > Argentina after losing the Falklands/Malvinas Hmmm Argentina was under a military dictatorship which started the war and after that we managed to finally have democratic elections again, not sure where the "populist revolution" comes into play there.
      - gregjor 3y ago
        I think a lot more played into the revolutions you listed. Many more countries have lost wars and/or lost significant overseas holdings without political upheaval. The USA lost (or walked away from) multiple wars since WWII with negligible political consequences. Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Belgium all lost their overseas colonies, and only France had significant upheaval clearly related to losing Algeria. I don't see a tendency in your list, rather some examples where populist revolutions took advantage of a weakened and discredited regime. I could list quite a few more populist revolutions and civil wars that did not follow military losses. Russia almost certainly faces a bigger risk of internal convulsions and populist revolution than the US or any western European country. Putin has apparently staked everything on winning in Ukraine, so a loss or even a stalemate might very well topple him and his regime. Russia has a history of populist revolutions, the USA does not. I think losing Europe seems farfetched. Russia can barely maintain a war with a weaker country with a long land border. Europe and NATO have a lot more resources and advantages such as the superior US and British navies. Russia is surrounded by neutral or hostile countries, many of which have American/NATO missiles in range, but the USA does not have that problem. The bases the US maintains in Europe exist primarily to oppose Russian (formerly Soviet) expansion, so if Europe actually fell to Russia those bases would have no purpose anyway.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Fair enough. To be clear, I don't think losing a world war destroys America. But I do think the risks of disintegration are high even if the homeland is never hit. (One also assumes the victor(s) of that war would seek to constrain America's ability to ever check them again.)
        baybal2 3y ago
    - hilbert42 3y ago
      "America almost certainly won't get attacked or invaded on its own soil,..." Uh? Ever heard of nuclear intercontinental missiles?
      - gregjor 3y ago
        Of course. I grew up in the '60s and '70s. I've been through something like this before, crawling under my desk at school and hearing about how the Soviet army was bigger than ours. If missiles launch then both sides get damaged so badly that conventional attacks or invasions can't happen. The US is too big, too far away, and protected by oceans, so the only possible attack on US soil is missiles, and if that happens the other side will cease to exist as a military power. I'm sure you understand my point that as long as the war in Ukraine, or a Chinese attack on Taiwan, remain conventional (non-nuclear) the damage will happen far away from American soil. If those conflicts escalate to nuclear weapons then all bets are off.
        hilbert42 3y ago
        I understand your points all too well and no doubt your arguments make sense. "If those conflicts escalate to nuclear weapons then all bets are off." Exactly, trouble is escalation can occur though some overly noisey side issue or one that's hardly related. In an ideal world a trigger point can be known, in a noisy one randomness makes the point much less certain. My view is to do everything possible to keep well below that trigger point. Having as much margin as is possible is always a good idea.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > My view is to do everything possible to keep well below that trigger point. Having as much margin as is possible is always a good idea. The problem is this can slip into appeasement, which is how we stumbled into the last two world wars. You have to be credibly ready to end a war. But have the discipline not to start them.
        3y ago

gregjor 3y ago

Americans have the least to worry about. Just like the last two world wars, the destruction will most likely happen in Europe and Asia. America doesn't fight wars on its own soil. Widespread nuclear war could happen but that doesn't leave any winners, and it seems clear both Russia and China have actual strategic goals rather than a mad desire to destroy everything.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Americans have the least to worry about. Just like the last two world wars, the destruction will most likely happen in Europe and Asia Don't underestimate the destabilising political consequences of losing a major war.
- gregjor 3y ago
  Do you think those destabilizing political consequences would turn out worse than the political dysfunction America has already without losing a war? Since America almost certainly won't get attacked or invaded on its own soil, the US can't "lose" a war in the same sense Ukraine can, or Germany and Japan did. The US can lose face and influence, but I think we're used to that by now after Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. We "lost" all of those wars in some sense (failed to achieve stated strategic objectives) but didn't experience destabilizing political consequences.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Do you think those destabilizing political consequences would turn out worse than the political dysfunction America has already without losing a war? Yes. I haven't researched this extensively, but losers in even foreign wars have a tendency to suffer populist revolutions. (Think: Russia v. Japan, Argentina after losing the Falklands/Malvinas, the Ottomans.) We seem to have a deep-built anger response to leadership's martial failures. America forcibly losing e.g. its bases on an entire continent would credibly put not only America's leadership, but the entire system around them, into legitimate question. Instead of a minority calling for the Constitution to be terminated, we might have a brief majority. Hopefully not, though. A brilliant counterpoint being Rome's resilience against being repeatedly decimated (or worse) by Hannibal.
    - dysoco 3y ago
      > Argentina after losing the Falklands/Malvinas Hmmm Argentina was under a military dictatorship which started the war and after that we managed to finally have democratic elections again, not sure where the "populist revolution" comes into play there.
    - gregjor 3y ago
      I think a lot more played into the revolutions you listed. Many more countries have lost wars and/or lost significant overseas holdings without political upheaval. The USA lost (or walked away from) multiple wars since WWII with negligible political consequences. Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Belgium all lost their overseas colonies, and only France had significant upheaval clearly related to losing Algeria. I don't see a tendency in your list, rather some examples where populist revolutions took advantage of a weakened and discredited regime. I could list quite a few more populist revolutions and civil wars that did not follow military losses. Russia almost certainly faces a bigger risk of internal convulsions and populist revolution than the US or any western European country. Putin has apparently staked everything on winning in Ukraine, so a loss or even a stalemate might very well topple him and his regime. Russia has a history of populist revolutions, the USA does not. I think losing Europe seems farfetched. Russia can barely maintain a war with a weaker country with a long land border. Europe and NATO have a lot more resources and advantages such as the superior US and British navies. Russia is surrounded by neutral or hostile countries, many of which have American/NATO missiles in range, but the USA does not have that problem. The bases the US maintains in Europe exist primarily to oppose Russian (formerly Soviet) expansion, so if Europe actually fell to Russia those bases would have no purpose anyway.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Fair enough. To be clear, I don't think losing a world war destroys America. But I do think the risks of disintegration are high even if the homeland is never hit. (One also assumes the victor(s) of that war would seek to constrain America's ability to ever check them again.)
      - baybal2 3y ago
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    "America almost certainly won't get attacked or invaded on its own soil,..." Uh? Ever heard of nuclear intercontinental missiles?
    - gregjor 3y ago
      Of course. I grew up in the '60s and '70s. I've been through something like this before, crawling under my desk at school and hearing about how the Soviet army was bigger than ours. If missiles launch then both sides get damaged so badly that conventional attacks or invasions can't happen. The US is too big, too far away, and protected by oceans, so the only possible attack on US soil is missiles, and if that happens the other side will cease to exist as a military power. I'm sure you understand my point that as long as the war in Ukraine, or a Chinese attack on Taiwan, remain conventional (non-nuclear) the damage will happen far away from American soil. If those conflicts escalate to nuclear weapons then all bets are off.
      - hilbert42 3y ago
        I understand your points all too well and no doubt your arguments make sense. "If those conflicts escalate to nuclear weapons then all bets are off." Exactly, trouble is escalation can occur though some overly noisey side issue or one that's hardly related. In an ideal world a trigger point can be known, in a noisy one randomness makes the point much less certain. My view is to do everything possible to keep well below that trigger point. Having as much margin as is possible is always a good idea.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > My view is to do everything possible to keep well below that trigger point. Having as much margin as is possible is always a good idea. The problem is this can slip into appeasement, which is how we stumbled into the last two world wars. You have to be credibly ready to end a war. But have the discipline not to start them.
        3y ago