World War III, the inevitable, the horrific

~ Exactly. The mighty USA must have priorities .

 

Don't you love it how these Putin haters keep underestimating Putin. They keep goading him forgetting he can hit us with a nuke. That is a great danger we can't have. After Trump was elected the lying Hillary gang blamed Putin for his win. When the factual story came out about Hunter Biden, the little nerds at twitter banned it. They ALL said it was Russia collusion. Putin has heard all of this for years, how do you think he feels when he reads this. He feels the national security of his country is in danger. Biden would not assure him regarding Ukraine and NATO. It is wrong for him to invade, but he feels it is necessary. Zelensky is a corrupt punk, the msm is now covering up all the corruption in Ukraine that goes back decades. Let's see, could this have anything to do with Hunter Biden working at Burisma, and his daddy Joe who was v.p. at the time, holding up aid unless they fired the prosecutor finding dirt on Burisma? Russia is against gay marriage, against trans, etc. The Ukraine war mongers don't like that. Putin sees what America is becoming. And yes, Putin has more nuclear weapons then we do.

 

oh great....another Russian roleplayer......how many have we got now

 

It is foolish and dangerous to underestimate Russia. But I cant fault people for underestimating Putin. US/NATO spent at least a decade laying a pretty obvious trap for Russia in Ukraine, and Putin has essentially said as much, then he just tossed Russia into it head first anyway.

But still, nuclear war isn't something to get patriotic or nationalist about. If anything is a legit global concern, its nuclear war.

 

I noticed you didn't make any substantive critique of my comments other than they were an "oversimplification." Well yes, but every comment on this forum is an "oversimplification" because we're not writing book length treatise, we're making short comments that should be summaries of larger ideas. If you have a critique of my comments, please; I welcome valid criticism, but simply saying they're an oversimplification adds nothing to the conversation.

 

For some people, who start multiple threads on the topic, it's the most important issue of our times.

 

We created an era of relative peace and prosperity. Before that, the world was imperial, with limited international trade. War was inevitable. Before WW1 started, there were 4 or 5 empires desperate to survive. They could tell things were going to change, but all they accomplished was to hasten their demise

It's a huge story. You can spend a career studying just Bretton Woods.

My personal feeling is that, apart from trade, we haven't integrated enough. The next logical step for us is joining the ICC.

 

Er OK, but that has nothing to do with the comment you were supposedly dismissing as an "oversimplification."

 

Of course it does.

We built the world you live in. If we don't build the future we want to live in, we'll get something considerably less pleasant..

 

I was addressing the direction of foreign policy, not whatever you're talking about.

 

In what way are we underestimating Putin?

Actually, it seems like there are ways in which we overestimated Putin.

I agree nuclear war is not something to get patriotic over - or to use as partisan political fodder.

 

I was trying to be polite when I called that an oversimplification.

It's an ignorant caricature..

No one is talking about fighting China. Free Tibet? Show me anyone of stature that ever said that we should invade.

Same for the Saudi, we have been allies since WW2. While our relationship isn't what it used to be, that would be seven kinds of crazy; as well as a betrayal nobody would miss.

The guys that want to invade everywhere were the PNAC guys like Cheney... Morality is not something that ever crossed his mind.

What diplomats try to do is balance our ideals against the reality in the country, and the region. But you have to know a little something to know that.

Republicans have been using Ukraine to smear Biden for years. But that ignores the rocky road Ukraine traveled. They were a lot like Russia, but with some nudging from the West, and the occasional carrot, we brought them around. Which, ironically, is the principle reason Putin invaded, in my distinctly unhumble opinion.

 

There have to be other factors, too, even though they aren't explicit.

We talk about going after China because of Tibet.

But, we give Israel arms and financial aid to carry out similar atrocities against Palestinians.

 

Of course, that's the point, that this is complicated.

Who is we??? Within the government no one is proposing we do that.

 

With China I'm not claiming Americans want to go to war.

But, one does hear a constant harangue against China. Remember Trump? Remember the assaults on Asians in the US?

As for Israel:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...americans-views-of-israelis-and-palestinians/

 

The poster I was addressing was actually leaning toward that no holds barred-invade anyone immoral view of foreign policy. So are you arguing that we should go to war with Russia to get Putin, or what exactly are you arguing? What is your foreign policy model and how does the current Russian-Ukraine conflict fit into it?

 

After further reflection I've got to admit that the notion of any ground-located doomsday A-bombs is not at all likely. The effect would be to fling cars, trucks and large building segments into low Earth orbit, where they would circle around for 500+ years, raining down willy-nilly at random locations.

 

The fact that you even use the archaic term "A-bomb" indicates you don't know what you're talking about.

And, I can speak with confidence. Unlike you, I've actually seen --- meaning touched with the hands -- nuclear warheads.

You've never fallen asleep and drooled on a nuclear warhead. I did. I was dog-tired because I they were 6 months behind on the Pershing II deployment and it was costing tax-payers an arm and leg and I got them caught up. Just 11 weeks behind schedule.

You don't know anything about NVCD or maintenance cycles.

There was a PII warhead in an ABREST, you know -- oh, that's right...you don't know -- an Atomic Blast-Resistant Earth-covered Structure. That's 1 meter of steel-reinforced concrete buried under 2 meters of earth. It's climate-controlled, kinda like your basement.

There was a lightning strike 400 meters away, but it still fried the warhead. I tried talking to the bomb and I was damn lucky it gave up the serial number.

Get it?

Nope, you don't. Warheads are very fragile. I know people like you think generals pull them out and play with them all the time, but that is not what happens. You park the warhead and leave it alone. Except for maintenance, which is something else you don't know anything about.

Wanna talk about spontaneous fission? I'd explain it, but half of it would go over your head and the other half would go way, way over your head.

If somebody hid a warhead and didn't maintain it for 10, 20, 30, 40 years then we got nothing to worry about, because it ain't gonna work.

Contrary to what you might believe, the purpose of maintenance is not to give people jobs so they have something to do. The purpose is to make sure the warhead is still functioning and will perform as intended.

 

Semi-Correct on the first point - non sequitur fallacy on the second .. it does not follow that the next war be due to a despot - never mind that his name be Putin.

Of course its avoidable .. hence why we are still here talking. Another problem with your historical analogy - is that all previous world wars .happened prior to the advent of nukes .. and that changes things. Genocide has nothing to do with the issue ... genocide been happening on a rather regular basis since the end of cold war .. over last 40 years .. most often at the behest of the US.. we managed to avoid going to nuclear war over genocide in Syria .. The US on the guilty end of the stick in this case . sure we can manage this time.

Actions speak louder than words .. and Trump is definitely a loudmouth .. Biden however takes the authoritarian cake when it comes to actions. Your post is not faring well thusfar .. lets hope for a solid finish !

Perhaps .. but, Russia can launch a bunch of nuclear cruise missiles from a container ship if it wants .. and in general .. in terms of acts of terrorism .. Russia doesn't need nukes.. far more complicated and far less deadly than using a bioweapon .. into the water supply .. badda boom .. and every microbiologist - such as myself - will tell you this or unleash some kind of deadly virus .. not as good as other option as the deadly virus could come back to bite you.. unless you had the antidote which is also possible .. but here nor there.

bottom line .. lots of ways to kill each other .. very easy to do - and both sides know it .. the public on steady died of propaganda pablum "not so much" .. got to keep the fear factor in the red line zone - keep the MIC gravy train flowing ..

 

Unlike;y bombs are already there. No need to do such a thing given missile technology and the ability to launch from land, sea, and soon enough, space. I doubt a total nuclear exchange would be nearly as catastrophic as Hollywood portrays it as being. After all, if there is anything we have learned from Ukraine, it is that you can co-exist with a melted down nuclear reactor. Nature finds a way to keep going, even if that is a one-eyed, five legged dog.

 

In fairness, a nuclear meltdown isn't nearly the disaster they liked to portray it in Hollywood.

 

Well, not in the short term. Japan is proof of that.

 

In less than ten years, Germany went through hyperinflation that wiped out the wealth of creditors and then a depression that put millions out of work. It would have been too much for many countries.

 

Reddit.com has a section called “Writer’s Prompts”. Reality is bad enough without conjuring up a Tom Clancy scenario.

 

Anyone who would start a nuclear war is pure evil.