The WW3 is beginning thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby Nordic » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:12 am

Iamwhomiam » Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:45 pm wrote:This: "Russia needs the US and it's stupid wars for the same reason it needs them, as an excuse to constantly increase the war budget."

And that's what all the war talk is about; to motivate the public to gain their approval to increase military spending.



Really? Does Russia have its own Military Industrial Complex that took over its country sixty years ago and has been running it ever since? Russia has a war-based economy? Russia has its own cabal of neocons who advocate for Russia's domination of the world? Putin is actually a puppet of this said complex?

Wow, it's good to know this because they've been able to hide this extremely well.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:18 am


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-midea ... SKCN12616I

U.N. envoy offers to escort rebels out of Aleppo

By Tom Miles and Stephanie Nebehay | GENEVA

The U.N. Special Envoy for Syria offered on Thursday to go to eastern Aleppo and escort up to 1,000 Islamist fighters out of the city to try to bring an end to bombardment by Russian and Syrian forces.

Staffan de Mistura said history would judge Syria and Russia if they used the presence of about 900 former Nusra Front fighters as an "easy alibi" for destroying the rebel-held area where 275,000 residents, 100,000 of them children, are besieged.

"The bottom line is in a maximum of two months, two and a half months, the city of eastern Aleppo at this rate may be totally destroyed," de Mistura told a news conference in Geneva.

Since the aerial bombing intensified on September 23rd, 376 people have been killed, one third of them children.

De Mistura said there were a maximum of 8,000 rebels in eastern Aleppo. Many ex-Nusra fighters left before the area was encircled and no more than 900 remain, he said, before addressing them directly.

"If you did decide to leave, in dignity with your weapons, to Idlib or anywhere you wanted to go, I personally am ready, physically ready, to accompany you," he said. "I can’t guarantee more than my own personality and body."

This year the United Nations has overseen an attempt to negotiate peace in Syria using U.S. and Russian pressure to bring the two sides together. It began fitfully, stalled, and collapsed this week with Washington's suspension of cooperation with Moscow, prompted by Russia's bombing in eastern Aleppo.

Russia says it is targeting banned terrorists in eastern Aleppo and blames the United States for not separating former Nusra fighters, now renamed Jabhat Fateh al Sham, in an apparent attempt to sever its links with al Qaeda, from other rebels.

De Mistura's offer to escort fighters out of eastern Aleppo was quickly backed by Russian presidential envoy Mikhail Bogdanov.

"It's high time," TASS news agency quoted him as saying in response to de Mistura's proposal. It was not immediately clear if Russia was also willing to stop its bombing, which has enabled Syrian government forces to make advances.

De Mistura said the choice was between destroying the whole city of eastern Aleppo, home to 275,000 people, for the sake of eliminating about 1,000 Nusra fighters, or letting the Nusra fighters leave and halting the bombing.

The latter option would leave the local administration in place and enable humanitarian and medical aid to reach the population, including at least 200 wounded civilians who need medical evacuation to save their lives.

(Reporting by Tom Miles and Stephanie Nebehay; additional reporting by Alexander Winning in Moscow; Editing by Dominic Evans)
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby Sounder » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:07 am

Really? Does Russia have its own Military Industrial Complex that took over its country sixty years ago and has been running it ever since? Russia has a war-based economy? Russia has its own cabal of neocons who advocate for Russia's domination of the world? Putin is actually a puppet of this said complex?


Oh come on now Nordic, you're making peoples heads hurt. :mrgreen:
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:30 am

Russia raised absolute military spending by 7.5% in rubles last year. Because of the ruble's decline against the dollar, it actually amounted to less in dollars, but more in % GDP. 4.5% of Russian wealth goes into it according to the books. This figure is probably an underestimate, like in the US, with essentially military spending hidden as other items.

Russia is of course the #2 world exporter in arms.


Russian Military Budget

According to an April 2016 study by experts from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Russian defense spending has fallen and the country no longer ranks as one of the world’s top three military spenders, having been overtaken by Saudi Arabia. In 2015, Russia increased its defense spending in rubles by 7.5 percent. However, the falling oil prices and the national currency’s collapse against the dollar have squeezed Moscow out of the top three slots on the SIPRI rating of military spenders: the Stockholm institute calculates defense spending in dollars.

According to SIPRI, in 2015 Russia increased its defense spending by 7.5 percent and the Defense Ministry’s budget reached $66.4 billion. The world’s biggest military spender, according to SIPRI, is the United States, which spent $596 billion on defense in 2015. It was followed by China, with $215 billion, and Saudi Arabia, with $84.2 billion.

Percentage-wise, Russia is one of the world leaders in terms of the share of GDP spent on defense. For instance, the United States’ defense spending makes up 3.5 percent of its GDP, with China’s reaching some 2.1 percent, whereas Russia’s amounts to 4.5 percent of its GDP. The Russian figure is the world’s largest after Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which spend 10.4 and 5.1 percent of their GDP respectively on arms.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said 30 May 2016 that he had approved the "new version of the program of development of the military-industrial complex in the years 2016-2020". The head of government told the Cabinet at a meeting with the vice-premiers "We are currently upgrading the entire army, Armed Forces, Navy with new weapons, there are specific goals that need to be filled, and, of course, the (necessary) to ensure the competitiveness of what we do on a global scale".

Talking about the competitiveness of Russian weapons, Medvedev said that success on the global market can be achieved only with an advanced military-industrial complex. "Now it’s impossible to deceive anybody - either the major countries or that which had been formerly called third world countries, that is, developing economies - they all want to get advanced products," the prime minister said. According to him, "So we should produce exactly this kind of military products."

More
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... budget.htm



Remember both accounting and exchange rates are misleading.

China is not 3 times the military power of Russia, and this probably reflects the relative military populations. Saudi Arabia is overheating on an insane war policy, paying billions for arms to the Americans, expending these in Yemen, spreading them around to allies and militias (but not ISIS or Nusra directly, we are told - that's just where they end up!). Laughable if what one derives from the above is that Saudi Arabia is a bigger military power than Russia!

Arms exports, I looked up figures for recent years, this four-year graphic represents them well:

Image
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby Novem5er » Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:33 am

As Jack noted above, I think it's clear that Russia has a significant arms export industry, very similar to the United States. Yet, how does Russia actually use its military?

A quick look at Russian military conflicts on Wikipedia gives this list:

Georgian Civil War 1991-1993
First Chechen War 1994-1996
War of Dagestan 1999
Second Chechen War 1999-2009
Russo-Georgian War 2008
North Caucus Insurgency 2009 -
Annexation of Crimea 2014
War in Donbass 2014 -
Intervention in Syria 2015 -

What do all these conflicts have in common? Most of these conflicts involve the suppression of rebels or the expansion of Russia's borders into Ukraine or Georgia.
So far, Syria is the only conflict in which Russia has used direct military force outside its traditional sphere of influence. This is not a judgment on the validity of Russian action, just a look at when and where they've been active recently. I think it's a remarkable difference from US military action. To find an US counterpoint, we'd have to invade parts of Canada, Mexico, and be putting down armed rebels in Mississippi.
User avatar
Novem5er
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:12 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby American Dream » Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:37 am

If the U.S. had only murdered people in "its backyard", that would not have been moral, only a lesser carnage...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:11 am

That is a combination of both: re-assertion of Russian imperialism over "traditional sphere of influence" wherein majorities don't actually want to be part of that sphere; and Russian defensiveness against genuine (if actually usually weak) Western attempts to destabilize and break up Russia itself.

No goddamn contradiction in seeing both. No need to adopt Putin's view of the world. No need to make of him a Hitler-Demon.

Example: Bush regime at height of economic crisis (in which Russia took bad hit from plunge in oil) basically and recklessly pushed Georgia into trying to settle militarily with its breakaway Russian-supprted enclaves, thus provoking a Russian attack against Georgia; the Bush regime could do nothing and clearly had not even planned for this outcome (and there was precious little to do beyond having a nuclear war over it).

Decrying the Russian imperialism from the West is easy and true enough, and also not very relevant to changing this dynamic. It demands detente and deescalation. West at least in the war of words is doing exactly the opposite, and deploying real assets as if it's going to seriously shoot down Russian planes in Syria, "liberate" the Ukrainian Russian territories, or respond to some fantasy scenario of a Russian invasion of the Baltics and Poland.

Shit is fucked up. Stop.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby brekin » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:58 am

Sounder wrote:
Really? Does Russia have its own Military Industrial Complex that took over its country sixty years ago and has been running it ever since? Russia has a war-based economy? Russia has its own cabal of neocons who advocate for Russia's domination of the world? Putin is actually a puppet of this said complex?


Oh come on now Nordic, you're making peoples heads hurt. :mrgreen:


No, in Russia its Military Industrial Complex didn't take over the country 60 years ago, it took over the country 100 years ago. Completely.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:03 pm

.

After the failure of the first Chechen war and popular rejection of war, there was a real turn and reboot from 1999 with Putin's accession, the launch of the Second Chechen War using the 9/99 events as the pretext, and adoption of "clean" and classic authoritarianism as the solution to oligarchic corruption (as if, swapping the pirate oligarchs for the obedient orderly ones with little decrease in exploitation) and as a means of addressing neoliberalism and societal fraying -- at the expense of the otherized enemies on the periphery. Once again, a binary set-up that sucks, a Scylla/Charibdis choice.

As for a Russian MIC, I see avid participation in the world arms markets and intent to remain technologically competitive by developing new generations, rather than a demand for negotiations on deescalating the perpetual arms race, an international shaming of the US as a war power, or even bothering to pose as the peace power, which was the Soviet line, as hypocritical as that may have been.

I was amazed just now looking up their recent share of the market, by the way. I was expecting to see 60% US and Russia at 20% tops.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:27 pm

Oh, I don't disagree with you, Jack. But I still feel we will not have an annihilating worldwide nuclear war. Of, course, it's as possible today we could, or tomorrow, just as on any other day gone by. There's only one way to completely avoid of nuclear war and that would be to dismantle our nuclear arsenals, and that's not likely to happen, not even under the best of circumstances.

Honestly, I feel more threatened by the poor state of our aging domestic nuclear power plants than I ever have by the possibility nuclear war.

Yeah, even with Drums Along the Mohawk, and all.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:34 pm

Nordic » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:12 am wrote:
Iamwhomiam » Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:45 pm wrote:This: "Russia needs the US and it's stupid wars for the same reason it needs them, as an excuse to constantly increase the war budget."

And that's what all the war talk is about; to motivate the public to gain their approval to increase military spending.



Really? Does Russia have its own Military Industrial Complex that took over its country sixty years ago and has been running it ever since? Russia has a war-based economy? Russia has its own cabal of neocons who advocate for Russia's domination of the world? Putin is actually a puppet of this said complex?

Wow, it's good to know this because they've been able to hide this extremely well.

No, not 60 years ago, but more like one hundred.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:51 pm

Iamwhomiam » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:27 am wrote:Oh, I don't disagree with you, Jack. But I still feel we will not have an annihilating worldwide nuclear war.


Of course you don't. Neither do I. The point remains, and you continue with it:

it's as possible today we could, or tomorrow, just as on any other day gone by. There's only one way to completely avoid of nuclear war and that would be to dismantle our nuclear arsenals, and that's not likely to happen, not even under the best of circumstances.

Honestly, I feel more threatened by the poor state of our aging domestic nuclear power plants than I ever have by the possibility nuclear war.

Yeah, even with Drums Along the Mohawk, and all.


Agreed on the nuclear power plants and of course the extraction and burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

Long term there is no greater threat than the continued maintenance of large nuclear arsenals by geostrategic antagonists and potential enemies in war. So I'm with Chomsky there. Very dangerous to treat it as something that will always be with us but too terrible to ever happen and so carefully safeguarded and blah, blah, boom.

It's only been 70 years, that is not long term and there have been a bunch of close calls over bullshit. Think in terms of a mere 700, not a very long historical stretch, and here's what obvious: the irresponsibility of not wanting to end this development and render war obsolete; the total irresponsibility of taking any risk of nuclear war over the bullshit we pretend is worth nuking for, like anyone's going to care about if the communists or capitalists temporarily came on top in an endless process of civilizations rising and falling. They will not be happy with us, they will rank this the highest barbarism.

(The nuclear power won support in the US as much for the need to maintain working fuel production as for the dubious energy benefits. Once that complex was established, sooooomuch money so there's a lobby...)

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby Rory » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:14 pm

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/ ... utumn.html

JMG had an interesting observation/estimate regarding the scale of human life relative to the time span of the planet's life bearing capacity.

Let’s imagine, by contrast, a metaphor that maps the entire history of life on earth, from the first living thing on this planet to the last, onto a single year. We don’t know exactly when life will go extinct on this planet, but then we don’t know exactly when it emerged, either; the most recent estimate I know of puts the origin of terrestrial life somewhere a little more than 3.7 billion years ago, and the point at which the sun’s increasing heat will finally sterilize the planet somewhere a little more than 1.2 billion years from now. Adding in a bit of rounding error, we can set the lifespan of our planetary biosphere at a nice round five billion years. On that scale, a month of thirty days is 411 million years, a single day is 13.7 million years, an hour is around 571,000 years, a minute is around 9514 years, and a second is 158 years and change. Our genus, Homo,* evolved maybe two hours ago, and all of recorded human history so far has taken up a little less than 32 seconds.

(*Another gender-nonspecific word for “human being,” this one comes from Latin, and is equally distinct from vir, “man,” and femina, “woman.” English really does need to get its act together.)

That all corresponds closely to the standard metaphor. The difference comes in when you glance at the calendar and find out that the present moment in time falls not on December 31 or any other similarly momentous date, but on an ordinary, undistinguished day—by my back-of-the-envelope calculation, it would be September 26.

I like to imagine our time, along these lines, as an instant during an early autumn afternoon in the great year of Earth’s biosphere. Like many another late September day, it’s becoming uncomfortably hot, and billowing dark clouds stand on the horizon, heralds of an oncoming storm. We human mayflies, with a lifespan averaging maybe half a second, dart here and there, busy with our momentary occupations; a few of us now and then lift our gaze from our own affairs and try to imagine the cold bare fields of early spring, the sultry air of summer evenings, or the rigors of a late autumn none of us will ever see.

With that in mind, let’s put some other dates onto the calendar. While life began on January 1, multicellular life didn’t get started until sometime in the middle of August—for almost two-thirds of the history of life, Earth was a planet of bacteria and blue-green algae, and in terms of total biomass, it arguably still is. The first primitive plants and invertebrate animals ventured onto the land around August 25; the terrible end-Permian extinction crisis, the worst the planet has yet experienced, hit on September 8; the dinosaurs perished in the small hours of September 22, and the last ice age ended just over a minute ago, having taken place over some twelve and a half minutes.

Now let’s turn and look in the other direction. The last ice age was part of a glacial era that began a little less than two hours ago and can be expected to continue through the morning of the 27th—on our time scale, they happen every two and a half weeks or so, and the intervals between them are warm periods when the Earth is a jungle planet and glaciers don’t exist. Our current idiotic habit of treating the atmosphere as a gaseous sewer will disrupt that cycle for only a very short time; our ability to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will end in less than a second as readily accessible fossil fuel reserves are exhausted, and it will take rather less than a minute thereafter for natural processes to scrub the excess CO2 from the atmosphere and return the planet’s climate to its normal instability.

Certain other consequences of our brief moment of absurd extravagance will last longer. On our timescale, the process of radioactive decay will take around half an hour (that is to say, a quarter million years or so) to reduce high-level nuclear waste all the way to harmlessness. It will take an interval of something like the same order of magnitude before all the dead satellites in high orbits have succumbed to the complex processes that will send them to a fiery fate in Earth’s atmosphere, and quite possibly longer for the constant rain of small meteorites onto the lunar surface to pound the Apollo landers and other space junk there to unrecognizable fragments. Given a few hours of the biosphere’s great year, though, everything we are and everything we’ve done will be long gone.

Beyond that, the great timekeeper of Earth’s biosphere is the Sun. Stars increase in their output of heat over most of their life cycle, and the Sun is no exception. The single-celled chemosynthetic organisms that crept out of undersea hot springs in February or March of the great year encountered a frozen world, lit by a pale white Sun whose rays gave far less heat than today; the oldest currently known ice age, the Cryogenian glaciation of the late Precambrian period, was apparently cold enough to freeze the oceans solid and wrap most of the planet in ice. By contrast, toward the middle of November in the distant Neozoic Era, the Sun will be warmer and yellower than it is today, and glacial eras will likely involve little more than the appearance of snow on a few high mountains normally covered in jungle.

Thus the Earth will gradually warm through October and November. Temperatures will cycle up and down with the normal cycles of planetary climate, but each warm period will tend to be a little warmer than the last, and each cold period a little less frigid. Come December, most of a billion years from now, as the heat climbs past one threshold after another, more and more of the Earth’s water will evaporate and, as dissociated oxygen and hydrogen atoms, boil off into space; the Earth will become a desert world, with life clinging to existence at the poles and in fissures deep underground, until finally the last salt-crusted seas run dry and the last living things die out.

And humanity? The average large vertebrate genus lasts something like ten million years—in our scale, something over seventeen hours. As already noted, our genus has only been around for about two hours so far, so it’s statistically likely that we still have a good long run ahead of us. I’ve discussed in these essays several times already the hard physical facts that argue that we aren’t going to go to the stars, or even settle other planets in this solar system, but that’s nothing we have to worry about. Even if we have an improbably long period of human existence ahead of us—say, the fifty million years that bats of the modern type have been around, some three and a half days in our scale, or ten thousand times the length of all recorded human history to date—the Earth will be burgeoning with living things, and perfectly capable of supporting not only intelligent life but rich, complex, unimaginably diverse civilizations, long after we’ve all settled down to our new careers as fossils.

This does not mean, of course, that the Earth will be capable of supporting the kind of civilization we have today. It’s arguably not capable of supporting that kind of civilization now. Certainly the direct and indirect consequences of trying to maintain the civilization we’ve got, even for the short time we’ve made that attempt so far, are setting off chains of consequences that don’t seem likely to leave much of it standing for long. That doesn’t mean we’re headed back to the caves, or for that matter, back to the Middle Ages—these being the two bogeymen that believers in progress like to use when they’re trying to insist that we have no alternative but to keep on stumbling blindly ahead on our current trajectory, no matter what.


There's more discussion in the essay but the above pertinent to the mania that drives us to build war machines that can end all life on the planet many times over, yet be utterly inconsequential in The Grand Scheme of Things.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby OP ED » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:14 pm

Nordic » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:12 am wrote:
Iamwhomiam » Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:45 pm wrote:This: "Russia needs the US and it's stupid wars for the same reason it needs them, as an excuse to constantly increase the war budget."

And that's what all the war talk is about; to motivate the public to gain their approval to increase military spending.



Really? Does Russia have its own Military Industrial Complex that took over its country sixty years ago and has been running it ever since? Russia has a war-based economy? Russia has its own cabal of neocons who advocate for Russia's domination of the world? Putin is actually a puppet of this said complex?

Wow, it's good to know this because they've been able to hide this extremely well.


Let's see: um...
Yes.
Yes, but like 103 years ago.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. Although puppet may be making too much of a distinction. He's KGB which makes him a puppeteer.

Hide from whom? You? Perhaps.

They're traditionally much more straightforward about this stuff than western "liberators" tend to be so I haven't seen any real evidence that anyone is hiding anything.
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
fecemi la divina podestate,
la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore.

:: ::
S.H.C.R.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The WW3 is beginning thread

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:10 pm

I agree with you, Jack, and see it quite the same.

Very dangerous to treat it as something that will always be with us but too terrible to ever happen and so carefully safeguarded and blah, blah, boom.


Yes, I should have better qualified my comment by adding "in the foreseeable future" after "happen" so it read:

it's as possible today we could, or tomorrow, just as on any other day gone by. There's only one way to completely avoid of nuclear war and that would be to dismantle our nuclear arsenals, and that's not likely to happen in the foreseeable future, not even under the best of circumstances.


It seems we're light years from disarmament, so undoubtedly, somewhere in between that time and now chaos will reign, but I cannot dwell upon worrying about when that might be, whether it will be tomorrow or some other day in my limited future.

Perhaps I feel this way because I've endured enough irl drama, I dunno.

The scariest things I've experienced irl came from my own mind.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 169 guests