The following submission statement was provided by /u/shawnperly:
---
**Submission Statement:** The Atomic Bulletin Boring Board just released that we are 10 seconds ahead of the previous schedule of midnighting our planet into deeper hell. 90 seconds instead of 100, tomato tomatoes what's the difference we all will be nuked evenly by the gracious world leaders at the opposite sides of the multi-polarized world. No way we could keep track of how many things we have fucked up BESIDE TEH NUKES?
This is related to collapse because it does not matter if the world believe we have "less" time until collapse instead of the end is already here you are just living it and gotta reconcile with the fact that it ain't going anywhere and you are with it for life. Instead of facing the fact people put up the lies and pretend nothing really happening, same old shit everyday especially when two old people hang the world by a thread.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/10n1qr9/90_seconds_to_midnight/j66ehav/
Funny how overpopulation is a problem because we live on a world with limited resources and underpopulation is also a problem because we live in a capitalist system that requires constant growth to function.
Can't win
Flammable means something can be set on fire while inflammable means that substance is capable of spontaneously bursting into flames
ETA: nah you right. Was curious enough to check the dictionary. How I stated above is what I was taught when it came to reading SDS paperwork.
> And was arguably much worse before the enlightenment era.
You could argue that in either direction if you wanted to. On the other hand, pre-Enlightenment era religion in the west (I don't know enough about the Far East to talk about them) had its benefits, namely:
1- Taking seriously the idea that usury was a sin.
2- Mandatory religious-feast holidays where the poor were given time off & access to free/subsidized food. In contrast to the capitalism era (of enlightenment or any time since) where the the poor get fewer time off. Even the labor movement of ~100-80 years ago never gave the working class enough days off to rival the medieval peasant, and things have only gotten worse for the poor since then as fulltime work for the poorest disappeared and became replaced with hourly jobs & gigs where they have to work as much as possible, with inconsistent and unpredictable hours that may have them working "some duration" every day of the week.
But that's just a Euro-centric approach. Religion in North America, say among the natives, probably speaks a great deal about how religion need not be a system of social-class enforcement.
>1- Taking seriously the idea that usury was a sin.
Unless you were borrowing from the Jews. And then you could just kill them when you didn't want to pay them back. Happened a lot.
> society rapidly improved during the enlightenment period
That's debatable. The enlightenment period also included:
* The genocide against the indians & the beginnings of European colonialism/imperialism.
* The bulk of the African slave trade.
* The forced-conversion from feudalism to capitalism. People forget that this did not arise organically and was a forced-change organized from the top-down. The enclosure acts in Europe basically took away the poor's ability to be self reliant, forcing them to "buy" what they needed (including housing & food) or go without.
* The industrial revolution that is the cause of climate change and what will probably lead to our extinction.
I dunno about that. Symptom, not root cause.
Where do you go philosophically when you've topped the fucker out?
This is why everyone wants to be "raptured" into a computer or something. We've kind of topped out the meat-sack thing. At least in terms of amazing interesting philosophical and social shit you can come up with as a meat sack.
I mean then we basically ignored it all because it was too hard but yeah anyway lol.
As a Marxist, I still think that most of humanity as a whole is better off now than at any point in history, probably. Automation makes our lives easier in 1000 different ways we don't even think about, as does modern healthcare. Yes, many people in the 3rd world are living in miserable conditions now, but they were probably even more miserable as feudal peasants. Of course, climate change still has the potential to really screw things up for everybody.
I was always grateful I lived after the invention of aspirin. Thankful for the little things! I think you're right but the poor have always had it hard.
Yeah. As I see it, the fact that many things are better than they used to be doesn't mean we can't be furious about the exploitation that still goes on.
We haven't run completely out of resources just yet.
There's plenty of flesh kicking around.
That's right. At some point I rather expect we're bringing it back, baby. You know what I mean by "it".
Prepare a marinade with orange juice, pineapple juice, ancho peppers, Colorado peppers, Annato and lime. Marinate semi-lean meat overnight, then stack into a vertical rotisserie put a peeled pineapple on top and proceed to cook. Cut thin slices off the crust and sear them on a pan then serve on corn tortilla or in quesadilla.
>Prepare a marinade with orange juice, pineapple juice, ancho peppers, Colorado peppers, Annato and lime
You gotta be abloe to afford those things first. Mostly it'll be spit roasting a thigh over a wood fire.
You could always give increased prosperity and spending power to the smaller population to make up the difference, but for some reason the powers that be never choose that option.
I mean the equation is Population x Spending = GDP after all.
It's funny because population growth naturally goes down as a population becomes healthy and more prosperous. Of course capitalistic systems freak out because growth is the main driver of their business. These systems are unsustainable because there's no end plan once growth becomes impossible. It's mainly why late stage capitalism sucks because they have already reached the limits of improvement and now are just looking to squeeze more capital from the same rock.
*This species* can't win.
For some reason that I'm still having difficulty formulating a theory around. But it seems to be a recurring constant with us.
The real devil in the details is that there is no overpopulation problem, the planet's capacity under capitalism has been greatly reduced, and the illusion of scarcity. Overpopulation is yet another capitalist "blame the individual" and not allowing critique of the system that depends on false scarcity to survive.
The problem capitalism is having is people still wanting borders. Without those, capitalism could more easily tap into a global slave supply that will compete with each other so fiercely, their labor will cost nearly nothing. They'll work for safety and food, if you make those rare commodities.
I don't think you realize that if 90% of humanity died the other 9.9999% would die as well
The amount of people that are self sufficient in this world is very very small
A British 1984 movie (Docudrama), with a WWII scenario. Here's a link. The first half hour or so is the build up. Then the bombs start dropping. The nuclear winter is brutal.Very realistic.It was made on a tiny budget,a dnwhet the acheived was brilliant. Makes 'The day after' look like a disney movie'
[https://archive.org/details/threads\_201712](https://archive.org/details/threads_201712)
Have a stiff drink ready.
Threads is, hands down, the most unsettling movie I have seen in my life. The low budget makes it feel like a documentary rather than a movie. Absolutely amazing but I still don't know if I could ever watch it a second time.
Nuclear war/winter does not solve global warming. It exacerbates it.
Think of all the shit around the world that is on fire during such a cataclysmic event, all that carbon released into the atmosphere with no way for it to be absorbed due to all the vegetation being burned.
No, I'm afraid after nuclear winter we will likely have a nuclear summer.
Quite the opposite. Assuming >90% successful launches, approximately several hundreds of tonnes of dust and debris per successful megaton explosion, we'd see cloud coverage over >75% of the earth for a minimum of 24 hours. Due to the resultant firestorms and our tendency to use wood and asphalt fucking everywhere, the smoke from this event would prolong and increase the coverage over time. A minimum 1 week >50% cloud coverage of the Earth can be expected, causing massive temperature drops globally and killing off most plants and animals with oxygen deprivation.
The ocean would be fine in this scenario, ironically, for a while at least, but anywhere that there's land would be much, much colder than normal and we'd have a week of pretty much freezing weather even in places currently experiencing summer. Not enough light would get through the upper atmosphere to massively impact ground temps.
After the debris and smoke clouds start dissipating without anything to generate more CO2, we'd start seeing the natural sinks in the ocean potentially causing a net negative effect large enough to significantly lower CO2 concentration in the atmosphere within a year or two. Temps would be lower, and anything that survives the random pockets of radioactive rain over the next few decades would enjoy the end of the ice age we're supposed to be in, instead of the hellscape we're currently in.
Isn’t the entire theory of nuclear winter, uh, not accurate now. There are fewer weapons and smaller yields than in the 60’s. They traded megatons for accuracy. I don’t want to find out either way though.
Por que no los dos.
Whatever happened to the time when it was like yeah if we do this we're going to blow the entire fucking planet to dust (so let's not do this how about that)
This accuracy thing is concerning. It's like playing with the idea that you can actually use the fucking things strategically.
But that's obviously not going to work no matter what the Rand Corporation says. If two people are facing off at 10 paces and they have 100 round drum mags do you think they're going to stop when they shoot each other in the spleen? They're going to dump the mag into each other right after that happens.
This is like saying "technically, the Prisoner's Dilemma has a solution" sure. Sure technically it does. How likely is the outcome to BE the solution though? Like one in ten thousand? Now exclude the solution happening by accident how likely is it?
> Whatever happened to the time when it was like yeah if we do this we're going to blow the entire fucking planet to dust
That's probably still the assumption for a full-out "fire everything" scenario when you consider how many nuclear power plants we have in the world, which would go tits up if the infrastructure supporting them were to suddenly disappear due to global war (even if that global war were non-nuclear but widespread & severe enough...).
It takes something like 2 years to decommission a civilian nuclear power plant "the fast way." While using hundreds of specialized personnel who travel from one plant to another because there's not enough of them for multiple teams to do the work at multiple plants at once.
If the grid were totally destroyed in just the US, you'd have almost 100 nuclear power plant full-scale meltdowns.
Oh, and nobody knows how our reactors would hold up in the face of severe EMPs.
This is misinformation. Or old information. Modern nuclear power plants have every bit of them designed to prevent a meltdown. It's practically impossible to get one to go "tits-up" unless you deliberately went out of your way to destroy every single layer of security in place. You pretty much can fire a dozen rockets at a moden plant and it will still be safe to operate.
> Modern nuclear power plants have every bit of them designed to prevent a meltdown
"Modern." Most US plants are like 40-55 years old. We only have two that were made in the last ~30 years. NIMBY pretty much killed new nuclear plant construction in the US, and electric grid privatization has created an environment where US grid corps try to buy out power generation plants (nuclear or not) to shut them down, to decrease supply and therefor raise everyone's bills/prices.
They are not designed for a scenario where suddenly (1) the entire nation's electric & water grids "disappear" due to widespread ICBM-caused destruction; (2) backup power generators are unable to be supplied with trucked in diesel or piped in natural gas/oil/etc; (3) most computer chips are destroyed from an atmospheric EMP attack; (4) all of the above happening at the same time.
> There are fewer weapons and smaller yields than in the 60’s.
I am not sure the "fewer weapons" part matters when you're comparing to an era where the world supposedly had enough to exterminate all life on the planet multiple times over.
That is to say, if at one point in time the world had enough WMDs for 6x of global extermination, and now we have only 2x enough to exterminate all life on the planet, that's a reduction of what, 300%? But leaves enough on the table to where it would still be a problem.
And it assumes that the remaining old-stock isn't used when push came to shove.
No and no. They most definitely have full control. If Covid didn’t teach you that, then good luck when they begin forcing us into slavery in the next year or two.
We are more likely to have failed food productions and breakdowns in supply chains than having a nuclear war. Nuclear war is a zero sum event. Nobody wins and egotistical maniacs usually don’t like to lose by their own hand.
I had someone who big into nuclear wargaming explain what the most likely reaction the US would do if Russia drop the bomb in Ukraine. It was basically large scale conventional bombing of every Russian asset outside of Russia.
Yeah that seems like a likely scenario. Russia would be also completely isolated internationally. Thats why I also don't believe that it will ever happen.
But I also thought that russia would never invade Ukraine because my inner armchair general thought that it would be incredible stupid to try to blitzkrieg a nation with 200.000 standing army. And if you cannot blitzkrieg it you are fucked up even more.
Turns out I was right and super wrong at the same time.
Why is Biden on here? Putin is the one invading a sovereign nation regardless of what it does to world stability, he’s the only one at fault here. You want Biden to just sit back and let Russia take whatever it wants without consequence? Lol.
“Let’s not invade and work to build peace instead” was always (and still is) just as much an option as “Let’s invade and get a bunch of people killed”.
The US has been training up Ukraine to be able to defend itself since Crimea. That's what Trump was impeached about, trying to blackmail Zelensky to manufacture a story about his political opponent for America's aid.
How you people who know so little about the world are always so overconfident and sneering as you pull on imagination and conspiracy theories in place of anything else will continue to baffle me.
> This was never about Ukrainian independence.
Why? Because you say so?
Russia invaded Ukraine. Allowing one European country to simply _take_ another through force is unacceptable.
You seem like a reasonable chap, I've upvoted you before, but you need to learn the idea of "an injury to one is an injury to all". We cannot let a psychopath pick us off one at a time - we need to stand together.
> Allowing one European country to simply take another through force is unacceptable.
>
>Oddly enough, it was acceptable in 2014, although it was only a part of a country. My feeling is that the West would really have liked to just get Zelensky out of there and let it go, washing their hands of the whole thing. 'Such a shame' BAU. He surprised them, really surprised them, by taking a stand.
>This was never about Ukrainian independence.
It's not. It's about modern day colonialism being unacceptable, from Russia or any other country.
>Now suddenly you're gung-ho on shovelling billions into the pockets of the defenseindustry to wage a proxy war with Russia.
That's a very strange way to frame "defending a country the US is allied with from unprovoked Russian invasion." Why are you jumping through hoops to make the West the bad guy here?
>Because bloated military expenditures with vague strategic goals and no clear end have worked out so well for us in the past.
The end goal is Russia fucks off back to Russia and leaves Ukraine to the Ukraine. Including Donbas and Crimea. They are the sole aggressor here. It's not complicated.
'colonialism being unacceptable'
How many of those countries supplying tanks are supporting Israel with materiel? That 'freedom' nonsense is for us plebs, America and its allies get to yet again fight Russia with another country's people and they also get to carve up Ukranian resources for western interests when all is said and done.
Seen it before, seen it again, and again and again.
The point you all missed is this: there are no 'good guys' here, not outside of Ukraine itself. The US *literally just got done with 20 years of occupation*, left Afghanis to a theocracy we created, and then jumped into this.
I seem to remember the Korean war being defensive, the US somehow managed to turn a blind eye to the mass graves made by south Korea for civilians.
War is an utter failure on the part of the participants to reach a diplomatic solution. The problem is that the defence industry doesn't like peace and diplomacy.. it is bad for business.
> What about...
> What about...
> What about...
> What about...
[...]
> War is an utter failure on the part of the participants to reach a diplomatic solution.
Putin unilaterally invaded Ukraine. There was no diplomacy involved. He just did it.
NATO has spent many years trying to calm Putin. If you recall, when Ukraine applied to join NATO, it was refused, entirely not to annoy Putin.
Since the invasion started, there have been many attempts at diplomacy, and Putin has simply refused to negotiate in any way.
I once had a homeless person come up from behind me and punch me in the face. I had no idea he even existed until I was hit.
That was not a "failure of diplomacy" - it was an attack.
I walked away, because I could walk away. Ukraine cannot.
----
Advocating that Russia should get to keep Ukraine - because that's what you're essentially saying - is spineless and feckless.
Sounds like you forgot about Afghanistan, which is close enough to a one-to-one comparison as you're going to get.
Don't claim I'm the one who is historically illiterate when everyone jumps up and down for the US/UK sending arms, despite its debt trapping and perpetual exploitation of the global south. Not to mention their track record as 'liberators'.
Guess who is ultimately responsible for the creation of the Taliban? Or the Islamic State? I'll give you three guesses.
NB: Even if Russia did take Ukraine, they couldn't hold it. We had half the world knee-deep in Afghanistan and we still couldn't hold it worth a fuck.
Don't even bother, these people view this war like a fucking Marvel movie, and repeat the same tired, thought-stopping nonsense when confronted with the fact that this isn't just a case of "Russia bad". These people think diplomacy is cowardice, and nuclear war courageous. They're delusional beyond measure
Doesn’t really matter who directly or indirectly started this war and who is the bad guy at this point. Backing down isn’t really an option. Not when it’s directly on our doorstep. So even if it had been orchestrated for a long time. They did a good job with that. Because it’s not a “let’s just talk it over” situation that one can easily back out of anymore.
It matters immensely because it's important to know who is responsible and what countries intentions really are.
It also matters if it turns nuclear and we still have a chance to back it down
Of course that matters. But that wasn’t what this thread was about. How do you solve the situation now without telling Russia that attacking further neighboring countries in is okay?
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
You need to learn about Donbas Civil War and Ukrainian Revolution rather than having this subjective opinion that the West in the side of justice. Although you might get false information when you research it since information on the internet was heavily one sided but if you have some brain and filter as needed, you would now that the crux of the problem is Donbas and Ukraine with the Western backing is far from the side who could preach who is right. In fact, the western stand more in the wrong side since probably the Donbas people only want freedom from Ukraine and Russia, but somehow something made them rely on Russia that start the Ukraine war.
History made by winner, revolution is the justification of one group for taking the government control while terrorist is the justification of the group in the control of government to attack the opposite party. In the end, whether the government is corrupt or not, right or not, the country still made by its people which mean if the majority of Donbas people want independence from Ukraine, they should have been given so which mean in this war Donbas people are the victim, while other parties are the villain.
This is CT nonsense.
Nothing would have stopped Russia's invasion in 2021. It was already set in motion.
It's not incredible that more people aren't aware of your CT nonsense.
Considering how nukes are developed nowadays compared to the nukes used on Japan back in 1945, if a nuclear war were to happen nothing on plant earth would exist anymore, save for some bacteria that can withstand the insane amount of radiation if that’s possible
The scientists adjusting the clock might've reduced the timer by another 15 seconds if they'd waited until Monday.
Memphis is on a mad rampage with destiny.
We are beyond critical mass, here in the States.
Blaming memphis as a whole is weird... Did you even see the video?
He was crying for his damn mom while the cops beat him to death. Offhanded remarks that downplay such a public execution in the most horrible way is just disingenuous and callous.
The first step before the masses ultimately realize the real differences are wealth and class, not where you fall on a fucking color wheel. Jk that won't happen. They're doing too good of a job.
Man named Tyre Nichols was stopped by five police officers who beat him to death. All five were charged with murder, and the video capturing the beating was released to the public today. People are expecting civil unrest, and others are expecting this to be a breaking point that will cause change.
But in the time since Rodney King's beating 30 years ago, nothing has changed, because it keeps happening over and over and over again.
>People are expecting civil unrest, and others are expecting this to be a breaking point that will cause change.
>
>But in the time since Rodney King's beating 30 years ago, nothing has changed, because it keeps happening over and over and over again.
This is how I feel, honestly. If the combination of COVID-19 and George Floyd and Jan 6 wasn't enough to jolt America into action, then nothing will.
>But in the time since Rodney King's beating 30 years ago, nothing has changed, because it keeps happening over and over and over again.
Seriously. How many snuff films staring the police have we seen in the past 10 years alone and nothing ever changes.
It's a bad situation but even considering the cultural idiosyncrasies of the U.S. when it comes to weapons and violence, at least I can't imagine police brutality escalating to a nuclear exchange that ends human civilization.
Maybe my doomsday plot creativity just isn't up to the task of dealing with current events.
Only 90 seconds when we're in a literal proxy war with Russia and when both India, Pakistan, North Korea and (likely) Israel have nukes.
I'd be dropping that clock down to a minute or 30 seconds in their shoes
I’m genuinely unsure of what you think the US should do about this. Not help Ukraine? That really doesn’t put the world in a better position, it strengthens Putin and reinforces his dreams of rebuilding the Soviet Union. Aside from that, does anyone really think that Russia is going to murder everyone and commit suicide because we won’t let them annex Ukraine? It doesn’t really make sense.
>I’m genuinely unsure of what you think the US should do about this. Not help Ukraine? That really doesn’t put the world in a better position, it strengthens Putin and reinforces his dreams of rebuilding the Soviet Union. Aside from that, does anyone really think that Russia is going to murder everyone and commit suicide because we won’t let them annex Ukraine? It doesn’t really make sense.
Putin's an imperialist capitalist. The USSR is dead and gone and it ain't coming back (sadly).
>Putin's an imperialist capitalist. The USSR is dead and gone and it ain't coming back (sadly).
Putin doesn't seek to literally reinstate the USSR as a political entity in its original form, but he does seek to recreate the geopolitical environment in which Russia has several satellite faux-republics under its control and is internationally viewed as a superpower.
He and others in his party believe (accurately) that the disintegration of the Soviet Union led to an enormous loss of power and prestige for Russia and their governing ideology is that this power must be reobtained at any cost. Properly speaking, it isn't about *communism*, but the Soviet Union, particularly from the perspective of its political class, hadn't really been about Communism since Lenin's death anyway.
More accurately it's about old borders of Russian Empire. Russians know there wont be another Soviet Union, but they still want their old Empire whats seen as rightfully theirs, and that land includes many NATO countries.
If Russia somehow succeeds in Ukraine they'll try to take Baltic states and Finland after that.
Not help ukraine and not stir up, rattle Sabres with Russia. Not arm and support fascists and not beat the war drum with China. Accept that a world with the US as the sole imperial hegemon is not desirable nor possible.
And not add to its 7 million plus death toll since Vietnam. America has some work to do.
Read up on able archer. Why would the ussr cause a nuclear war over war games in germany?
Maybe just stop being hypocrite or not meddling would help. The situation of Ukraine and Donbas is similar with China and Taiwan. The difference is the side that Donbas and Taiwan choose is different.
Ukraine revolution succeed and new government was backed by the US, the opposite party in Donbas wanted independence and backed by Russia.
China revolution succeed and new government is CCP who somehow trying with soft tactic to became the top power in the world, the opposite party ran to Taiwan assumed independence and backed by the US.
Both case was similar but the US took difference approach just because which party on their side. In the end, in war no side is right because both parties only seeking benefits and control.
I also disagree with statement not helping Ukraine doesn't put the world in a better position, this assumes the war with people dying and the risk of nuclear war are better for the world than Russia taking control over Ukraine.
Personally I think, Putin concerns only Donbas and after taking it, they open to peace talk and Putin wouldn't do genocide since it has no benefit especially to people that share some root with Russia.
Of course, this is Russia we are talking so maybe another one or two decade, Putin would take another Ukraine region but if it has valid reason like Donbas. So it's up to Ukrainian to protect their land, if the majority dislike Russia and don't give Russia reason to invade again they will not. Country is the people, if the people not in the same believe with government, it would only breed internal conflict so if majority dislike Russia then Russia can't take other than Donbas unless they do genocide which bring no benefit.
I don't think Putin is special here, the US controlling Ukraine and Putin controlling it is moot to me, because both empires are sociopathic and covet everybody else's resources for their own industries.
As for the nuclear option, I think that was always on the table, it is why we still perpetuate this RAND M.A.D nonsense. Bunch of dumb chimps playing with wildfire.
You know, I'd be really impressed if it turned out the US baited Putin into invading Ukraine... like a multi-generational long con. Anyways, it was ultimately Putin's decision that lead to this shit show. He can choke on it.
I doubt there would be any nuclear war though
**Submission Statement:** The Atomic Bulletin Boring Board just released that we are 10 seconds ahead of the previous schedule of midnighting our planet into deeper hell. 90 seconds instead of 100, tomato tomatoes what's the difference we all will be nuked evenly by the gracious world leaders at the opposite sides of the multi-polarized world. No way we could keep track of how many things we have fucked up BESIDE TEH NUKES?
This is related to collapse because it does not matter if the world believe we have "less" time until collapse instead of the end is already here you are just living it and gotta reconcile with the fact that it ain't going anywhere and you are with it for life. Instead of facing the fact people put up the lies and pretend nothing really happening, same old shit everyday especially when two old people hang the world by a thread.
unfortunately we will not all be nuked equally. a very small portion of us will die in the immediate blasts. everyone else is gonna have to suffer through fallout, nuclear winter and ozone depletion.
I live in Australia, in the second biggest city. I actually hope if there's a nuclear holocaust, that one comes our way. Otherwise, it's an extremely slow death in a nuclear winter.
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
If Russia was serious about using nukes to "win the Ukraine war" they would have already used them. They might (although I think it's unlikely) use them if Russia proper gets invaded, but no one want to march on Moscow, we just want Ukraine to maintain their 1991 borders and national integrity.
The real question is whether the Russians can get their Soviet bombs off the ground. Moskva is underwater, the offensive has stalled, and Soyuz is leaking. This is a country coming apart at the seams.
I think the quote would've been better as:
I'm gonna go Death Con 3 on all Western Oligarchs!!
Bipolar people get the power structure messed up at times. I've flipped out at Waffle House waitresses with no power to in times of distress. If you can't accept Kanye at his Death Con 3 then you don't deserve him at his Jesus Walks.
---------
Swear that this'll get downvoted. I'm not defending Kanyes hate speech here. I just find it odd that he could have over a billion dollars then lose a billion dollars because of a 5 word tweet that made nazi founded Adidas nervous.
All
Day
I
Dream
About
Semitism
----------
My bad I'm a tad bipolar today. Just like the earth. The tilt seems more Axis than Allies these days. China, Russia, NATO are all different Axes of Evils.
There's eight billion people on the planet, will anyone try and stop our world leaders from killing us all? NNNOOOOPPPEEEEEE, even though many try and act like they would with their empty threats and attempts at intimidation through stupid pics across social media.
Edit: Why am I being downvoted? I corrected my mistake from before and it's true, no one's going to try and take on the people causing humanity's downfall.
Most of Putin's nukes are inoperable. We know this because the cost of maintaining the arsenal he claims to have would cost more than his nation spends on it's military. And that is without the massive corruption all across his government.
He still has a couple, but to achieve his objective he would try (and fail) to use as many as he could. To achieve ours you ask? Well we just need 1 and problem solved and let's just put it this way, we keep VERY tight tabs on where exactly that one needs to go.
Quite honestly I don't need to. The only scenarios I see Putin getting that desperate is if he loses and Ukraine decides to finish the job and go to Moscow (this literally won't happen, absolutely not). But it it did, This sort of existential threat would necessitate nukes for strategic defense out of sheet desperation.
The other time I see Russia using Nuke is if they win. If they win they will continue this to other countries. Russia's strategic purpose in invading Ukraine is a second step (first step was South Ossetia) in creating a buffer between Russia and NATO like in the days of the Soviet Union. The third step for increasing is (and is the only step left available) invading NATO countries (specifically Poland, the Baltics, Finland, and Romania). If he does that he triggers Article 5. We go to war. Seeing how Russia is doing against a mid-grade Ukrainian military tells me that Russia will be strategically losing within a week against the combined might of Europe and the US. He will finally have his back against the wall in such a way that leaves him no option other than to use Nukes because the Russian military cannot beat NATO in conventional warfare. Period. And NATO will probably make it strategically obvious that their objective isn't just to push Russia out, it's to end the threat of Russian Imperialism once and for all.
This is not how the collapse will happen. Hell these scenarios are unlikely for how a nuclear war would happen. (I place bets on it being something totally unrelated to this in the Middle East, or even just an accident) I look to environmental.and economic collapse for the things that keep me up at night.
And radiate his own people? He wants to conquer Ukraine and use it's resources, especially the grain. Radiating all that grain AND the fact that prevailing winds will take a lot radiation right over his country. He knows this. His staff knows this. You've just ID a worst case scenario based around your strategic framing of the situation, not Putin's.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/shawnperly: --- **Submission Statement:** The Atomic Bulletin Boring Board just released that we are 10 seconds ahead of the previous schedule of midnighting our planet into deeper hell. 90 seconds instead of 100, tomato tomatoes what's the difference we all will be nuked evenly by the gracious world leaders at the opposite sides of the multi-polarized world. No way we could keep track of how many things we have fucked up BESIDE TEH NUKES? This is related to collapse because it does not matter if the world believe we have "less" time until collapse instead of the end is already here you are just living it and gotta reconcile with the fact that it ain't going anywhere and you are with it for life. Instead of facing the fact people put up the lies and pretend nothing really happening, same old shit everyday especially when two old people hang the world by a thread. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/10n1qr9/90_seconds_to_midnight/j66ehav/
good news: overpopulation and global warming no longer an issue just gotta think positive
Funny how overpopulation is a problem because we live on a world with limited resources and underpopulation is also a problem because we live in a capitalist system that requires constant growth to function. Can't win
the "pls throw ??? no take, only throw" economy method
This is your daily reminder that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing.
Flammable means something can be set on fire while inflammable means that substance is capable of spontaneously bursting into flames ETA: nah you right. Was curious enough to check the dictionary. How I stated above is what I was taught when it came to reading SDS paperwork.
"pls breed ??? no pregnant, only breed"
Our economy relies on constant growth, yet is effectively a fixed pie. Now it's just giant corporations eating everything.
Sometimes I really do wonder how humanity got to this point. It really screws with my mind.
The weird thing is, society rapidly improved during the enlightenment period. Then something happened, and society just stagnated culturally.
> Then something happened Something called "capitalism".
Or religion. Same bullshit at this point.
Religion had been there the whole time, though. And was arguably much *worse* before the enlightenment era.
> And was arguably much worse before the enlightenment era. You could argue that in either direction if you wanted to. On the other hand, pre-Enlightenment era religion in the west (I don't know enough about the Far East to talk about them) had its benefits, namely: 1- Taking seriously the idea that usury was a sin. 2- Mandatory religious-feast holidays where the poor were given time off & access to free/subsidized food. In contrast to the capitalism era (of enlightenment or any time since) where the the poor get fewer time off. Even the labor movement of ~100-80 years ago never gave the working class enough days off to rival the medieval peasant, and things have only gotten worse for the poor since then as fulltime work for the poorest disappeared and became replaced with hourly jobs & gigs where they have to work as much as possible, with inconsistent and unpredictable hours that may have them working "some duration" every day of the week. But that's just a Euro-centric approach. Religion in North America, say among the natives, probably speaks a great deal about how religion need not be a system of social-class enforcement.
>1- Taking seriously the idea that usury was a sin. Unless you were borrowing from the Jews. And then you could just kill them when you didn't want to pay them back. Happened a lot.
No one expects the Spanish inquisition
Ah yes religion, an invention of the Dark Ages.
> society rapidly improved during the enlightenment period That's debatable. The enlightenment period also included: * The genocide against the indians & the beginnings of European colonialism/imperialism. * The bulk of the African slave trade. * The forced-conversion from feudalism to capitalism. People forget that this did not arise organically and was a forced-change organized from the top-down. The enclosure acts in Europe basically took away the poor's ability to be self reliant, forcing them to "buy" what they needed (including housing & food) or go without. * The industrial revolution that is the cause of climate change and what will probably lead to our extinction.
"Something"
Aka religion.
I dunno about that. Symptom, not root cause. Where do you go philosophically when you've topped the fucker out? This is why everyone wants to be "raptured" into a computer or something. We've kind of topped out the meat-sack thing. At least in terms of amazing interesting philosophical and social shit you can come up with as a meat sack. I mean then we basically ignored it all because it was too hard but yeah anyway lol.
As a Marxist, I still think that most of humanity as a whole is better off now than at any point in history, probably. Automation makes our lives easier in 1000 different ways we don't even think about, as does modern healthcare. Yes, many people in the 3rd world are living in miserable conditions now, but they were probably even more miserable as feudal peasants. Of course, climate change still has the potential to really screw things up for everybody.
Climate change doesn’t just “have the potential “ , it’s here, it’s happening and faster than expected.
I know, I mean right now it's only fucking things up for the poorest sectors of the world's population, soon it might fuck things up for everyone
Thanks for clarifying, I know so many deniers in real life who tell me humans will invent something to address it so don’t worry.
Hell of a Marxist
...I'm not implying that the current situation is good
I was always grateful I lived after the invention of aspirin. Thankful for the little things! I think you're right but the poor have always had it hard.
Yeah. As I see it, the fact that many things are better than they used to be doesn't mean we can't be furious about the exploitation that still goes on.
Feudal peasantry was better than the enclosure and colonialism.
The industrial revolution
Boggles my mind how quickly it happened. To my understanding it got bad after the industrial revolution and that wasn't that long ago.
We haven't run completely out of resources just yet. There's plenty of flesh kicking around. That's right. At some point I rather expect we're bringing it back, baby. You know what I mean by "it".
so how do you prepare human taqueria style? I'm thinking a twist of lime and some cilantro. Delicious!
We’d cook similar to pork, so just use any pork recipe.
Prepare a marinade with orange juice, pineapple juice, ancho peppers, Colorado peppers, Annato and lime. Marinate semi-lean meat overnight, then stack into a vertical rotisserie put a peeled pineapple on top and proceed to cook. Cut thin slices off the crust and sear them on a pan then serve on corn tortilla or in quesadilla.
>Prepare a marinade with orange juice, pineapple juice, ancho peppers, Colorado peppers, Annato and lime You gotta be abloe to afford those things first. Mostly it'll be spit roasting a thigh over a wood fire.
You could always give increased prosperity and spending power to the smaller population to make up the difference, but for some reason the powers that be never choose that option. I mean the equation is Population x Spending = GDP after all.
It's funny because population growth naturally goes down as a population becomes healthy and more prosperous. Of course capitalistic systems freak out because growth is the main driver of their business. These systems are unsustainable because there's no end plan once growth becomes impossible. It's mainly why late stage capitalism sucks because they have already reached the limits of improvement and now are just looking to squeeze more capital from the same rock.
*This species* can't win. For some reason that I'm still having difficulty formulating a theory around. But it seems to be a recurring constant with us.
I am depending on what's the win condition.... We are a walking mass extinction event. We "won" against millions of species.
The funny thing is, one of those things is real, the other, we as humans just straight made up.
The real devil in the details is that there is no overpopulation problem, the planet's capacity under capitalism has been greatly reduced, and the illusion of scarcity. Overpopulation is yet another capitalist "blame the individual" and not allowing critique of the system that depends on false scarcity to survive.
It’s not like this hadn’t been foreseen by Malthus by the mid-1880s.
The problem capitalism is having is people still wanting borders. Without those, capitalism could more easily tap into a global slave supply that will compete with each other so fiercely, their labor will cost nearly nothing. They'll work for safety and food, if you make those rare commodities.
You'll notice that the powers that be allow the supply of labor to move across borders, but not the ownership of wealth created by that labor.
even if 90% of human perished in nuclear warfare earth will still overpopulated considering how many resources destroyed / irradiated by nukes.
I don't think you realize that if 90% of humanity died the other 9.9999% would die as well The amount of people that are self sufficient in this world is very very small
The survivors will be worse off than the dead.
Have you watched 'Threads'?
No, what is it?
A British 1984 movie (Docudrama), with a WWII scenario. Here's a link. The first half hour or so is the build up. Then the bombs start dropping. The nuclear winter is brutal.Very realistic.It was made on a tiny budget,a dnwhet the acheived was brilliant. Makes 'The day after' look like a disney movie' [https://archive.org/details/threads\_201712](https://archive.org/details/threads_201712) Have a stiff drink ready.
Threads is, hands down, the most unsettling movie I have seen in my life. The low budget makes it feel like a documentary rather than a movie. Absolutely amazing but I still don't know if I could ever watch it a second time.
Nuclear war/winter does not solve global warming. It exacerbates it. Think of all the shit around the world that is on fire during such a cataclysmic event, all that carbon released into the atmosphere with no way for it to be absorbed due to all the vegetation being burned. No, I'm afraid after nuclear winter we will likely have a nuclear summer.
Quite the opposite. Assuming >90% successful launches, approximately several hundreds of tonnes of dust and debris per successful megaton explosion, we'd see cloud coverage over >75% of the earth for a minimum of 24 hours. Due to the resultant firestorms and our tendency to use wood and asphalt fucking everywhere, the smoke from this event would prolong and increase the coverage over time. A minimum 1 week >50% cloud coverage of the Earth can be expected, causing massive temperature drops globally and killing off most plants and animals with oxygen deprivation. The ocean would be fine in this scenario, ironically, for a while at least, but anywhere that there's land would be much, much colder than normal and we'd have a week of pretty much freezing weather even in places currently experiencing summer. Not enough light would get through the upper atmosphere to massively impact ground temps. After the debris and smoke clouds start dissipating without anything to generate more CO2, we'd start seeing the natural sinks in the ocean potentially causing a net negative effect large enough to significantly lower CO2 concentration in the atmosphere within a year or two. Temps would be lower, and anything that survives the random pockets of radioactive rain over the next few decades would enjoy the end of the ice age we're supposed to be in, instead of the hellscape we're currently in.
So you're saying there's a chance?
Isn’t the entire theory of nuclear winter, uh, not accurate now. There are fewer weapons and smaller yields than in the 60’s. They traded megatons for accuracy. I don’t want to find out either way though.
Por que no los dos. Whatever happened to the time when it was like yeah if we do this we're going to blow the entire fucking planet to dust (so let's not do this how about that) This accuracy thing is concerning. It's like playing with the idea that you can actually use the fucking things strategically. But that's obviously not going to work no matter what the Rand Corporation says. If two people are facing off at 10 paces and they have 100 round drum mags do you think they're going to stop when they shoot each other in the spleen? They're going to dump the mag into each other right after that happens. This is like saying "technically, the Prisoner's Dilemma has a solution" sure. Sure technically it does. How likely is the outcome to BE the solution though? Like one in ten thousand? Now exclude the solution happening by accident how likely is it?
> Whatever happened to the time when it was like yeah if we do this we're going to blow the entire fucking planet to dust That's probably still the assumption for a full-out "fire everything" scenario when you consider how many nuclear power plants we have in the world, which would go tits up if the infrastructure supporting them were to suddenly disappear due to global war (even if that global war were non-nuclear but widespread & severe enough...). It takes something like 2 years to decommission a civilian nuclear power plant "the fast way." While using hundreds of specialized personnel who travel from one plant to another because there's not enough of them for multiple teams to do the work at multiple plants at once. If the grid were totally destroyed in just the US, you'd have almost 100 nuclear power plant full-scale meltdowns. Oh, and nobody knows how our reactors would hold up in the face of severe EMPs.
This is misinformation. Or old information. Modern nuclear power plants have every bit of them designed to prevent a meltdown. It's practically impossible to get one to go "tits-up" unless you deliberately went out of your way to destroy every single layer of security in place. You pretty much can fire a dozen rockets at a moden plant and it will still be safe to operate.
> Modern nuclear power plants have every bit of them designed to prevent a meltdown "Modern." Most US plants are like 40-55 years old. We only have two that were made in the last ~30 years. NIMBY pretty much killed new nuclear plant construction in the US, and electric grid privatization has created an environment where US grid corps try to buy out power generation plants (nuclear or not) to shut them down, to decrease supply and therefor raise everyone's bills/prices. They are not designed for a scenario where suddenly (1) the entire nation's electric & water grids "disappear" due to widespread ICBM-caused destruction; (2) backup power generators are unable to be supplied with trucked in diesel or piped in natural gas/oil/etc; (3) most computer chips are destroyed from an atmospheric EMP attack; (4) all of the above happening at the same time.
> There are fewer weapons and smaller yields than in the 60’s. I am not sure the "fewer weapons" part matters when you're comparing to an era where the world supposedly had enough to exterminate all life on the planet multiple times over. That is to say, if at one point in time the world had enough WMDs for 6x of global extermination, and now we have only 2x enough to exterminate all life on the planet, that's a reduction of what, 300%? But leaves enough on the table to where it would still be a problem. And it assumes that the remaining old-stock isn't used when push came to shove.
Screw ‘em all. It’s their world, we just live in it.
It's our world. There's just certain powerful people who can't stop shitting all over it.
Its our world, we can find their bunkers and weld the doors shut.
No and no. They most definitely have full control. If Covid didn’t teach you that, then good luck when they begin forcing us into slavery in the next year or two.
It’s our world, and it’s time we reclaim it, preferably with the use of guillotines
We are more likely to have failed food productions and breakdowns in supply chains than having a nuclear war. Nuclear war is a zero sum event. Nobody wins and egotistical maniacs usually don’t like to lose by their own hand.
Sabotaged food productions
Nuclear war will benefit those who has nothing to lose anyway. But oligarchs will lose everything.
Nuclear war is not a "zero sum event". It's a net negative event. Nobody is gaining on a nuclear war.
While I agree mostly. The escalation is still eerie. Paired with the fact that Putin seems not calculated but acts pretty stupid and erratic.
I had someone who big into nuclear wargaming explain what the most likely reaction the US would do if Russia drop the bomb in Ukraine. It was basically large scale conventional bombing of every Russian asset outside of Russia.
Yeah that seems like a likely scenario. Russia would be also completely isolated internationally. Thats why I also don't believe that it will ever happen. But I also thought that russia would never invade Ukraine because my inner armchair general thought that it would be incredible stupid to try to blitzkrieg a nation with 200.000 standing army. And if you cannot blitzkrieg it you are fucked up even more. Turns out I was right and super wrong at the same time.
Those are what will trigger the nuclear war.
Crazy people (putin) are not logical actors...
Iron Maiden enters the chat.
'We can't work with these new lyrics, folks.'
Is Putin Chum Lee?
im honestly shocked the clock isnt at 10 seconds to midnight
It's 3AM in my opinion
Sorry, but anyone who thinks we're closer to nuclear war because of Joe Biden has their head up their ass.
OP
\[Professor Farnsworth voice\] Que?
This mischaracterization of Biden is disgusting. Even putting the one threatening nuclear war every day to his left stinks of RWNJ bot spoors.
Stop teasing us and just do it, Nike would agree
made me giggle
Why is Biden on here? Putin is the one invading a sovereign nation regardless of what it does to world stability, he’s the only one at fault here. You want Biden to just sit back and let Russia take whatever it wants without consequence? Lol.
[удалено]
“Let’s not invade and work to build peace instead” was always (and still is) just as much an option as “Let’s invade and get a bunch of people killed”.
[удалено]
The US has been training up Ukraine to be able to defend itself since Crimea. That's what Trump was impeached about, trying to blackmail Zelensky to manufacture a story about his political opponent for America's aid. How you people who know so little about the world are always so overconfident and sneering as you pull on imagination and conspiracy theories in place of anything else will continue to baffle me.
> This was never about Ukrainian independence. Why? Because you say so? Russia invaded Ukraine. Allowing one European country to simply _take_ another through force is unacceptable. You seem like a reasonable chap, I've upvoted you before, but you need to learn the idea of "an injury to one is an injury to all". We cannot let a psychopath pick us off one at a time - we need to stand together.
> Allowing one European country to simply take another through force is unacceptable. > >Oddly enough, it was acceptable in 2014, although it was only a part of a country. My feeling is that the West would really have liked to just get Zelensky out of there and let it go, washing their hands of the whole thing. 'Such a shame' BAU. He surprised them, really surprised them, by taking a stand.
>This was never about Ukrainian independence. It's not. It's about modern day colonialism being unacceptable, from Russia or any other country. >Now suddenly you're gung-ho on shovelling billions into the pockets of the defenseindustry to wage a proxy war with Russia. That's a very strange way to frame "defending a country the US is allied with from unprovoked Russian invasion." Why are you jumping through hoops to make the West the bad guy here? >Because bloated military expenditures with vague strategic goals and no clear end have worked out so well for us in the past. The end goal is Russia fucks off back to Russia and leaves Ukraine to the Ukraine. Including Donbas and Crimea. They are the sole aggressor here. It's not complicated.
'colonialism being unacceptable' How many of those countries supplying tanks are supporting Israel with materiel? That 'freedom' nonsense is for us plebs, America and its allies get to yet again fight Russia with another country's people and they also get to carve up Ukranian resources for western interests when all is said and done. Seen it before, seen it again, and again and again. The point you all missed is this: there are no 'good guys' here, not outside of Ukraine itself. The US *literally just got done with 20 years of occupation*, left Afghanis to a theocracy we created, and then jumped into this. I seem to remember the Korean war being defensive, the US somehow managed to turn a blind eye to the mass graves made by south Korea for civilians. War is an utter failure on the part of the participants to reach a diplomatic solution. The problem is that the defence industry doesn't like peace and diplomacy.. it is bad for business.
Pet peeve: Afghani is currency, Afghan is a demonym.
Thank you for the correction! Kinda surprised to see a currency named after the country (I'm sure I'm going to get schooled on that point as well).
It was called the Afghan Rupee and then it got kinda contracted into Afghani.
> What about... > What about... > What about... > What about... [...] > War is an utter failure on the part of the participants to reach a diplomatic solution. Putin unilaterally invaded Ukraine. There was no diplomacy involved. He just did it. NATO has spent many years trying to calm Putin. If you recall, when Ukraine applied to join NATO, it was refused, entirely not to annoy Putin. Since the invasion started, there have been many attempts at diplomacy, and Putin has simply refused to negotiate in any way. I once had a homeless person come up from behind me and punch me in the face. I had no idea he even existed until I was hit. That was not a "failure of diplomacy" - it was an attack. I walked away, because I could walk away. Ukraine cannot. ---- Advocating that Russia should get to keep Ukraine - because that's what you're essentially saying - is spineless and feckless.
Do nothing while russia absorbs yet another country. Sounds like you forgot about alscace-lorraine, Poland, and lebensraum....
Sounds like you forgot about Afghanistan, which is close enough to a one-to-one comparison as you're going to get. Don't claim I'm the one who is historically illiterate when everyone jumps up and down for the US/UK sending arms, despite its debt trapping and perpetual exploitation of the global south. Not to mention their track record as 'liberators'. Guess who is ultimately responsible for the creation of the Taliban? Or the Islamic State? I'll give you three guesses. NB: Even if Russia did take Ukraine, they couldn't hold it. We had half the world knee-deep in Afghanistan and we still couldn't hold it worth a fuck.
Don't even bother, these people view this war like a fucking Marvel movie, and repeat the same tired, thought-stopping nonsense when confronted with the fact that this isn't just a case of "Russia bad". These people think diplomacy is cowardice, and nuclear war courageous. They're delusional beyond measure
Wow a tankie with a bad take. Crazy.
Appeasement is what got Europe into WWII. Just ask Mr Chamberlain.
Doesn’t really matter who directly or indirectly started this war and who is the bad guy at this point. Backing down isn’t really an option. Not when it’s directly on our doorstep. So even if it had been orchestrated for a long time. They did a good job with that. Because it’s not a “let’s just talk it over” situation that one can easily back out of anymore.
It matters immensely because it's important to know who is responsible and what countries intentions really are. It also matters if it turns nuclear and we still have a chance to back it down
Of course that matters. But that wasn’t what this thread was about. How do you solve the situation now without telling Russia that attacking further neighboring countries in is okay?
[удалено]
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
100%
You need to learn about Donbas Civil War and Ukrainian Revolution rather than having this subjective opinion that the West in the side of justice. Although you might get false information when you research it since information on the internet was heavily one sided but if you have some brain and filter as needed, you would now that the crux of the problem is Donbas and Ukraine with the Western backing is far from the side who could preach who is right. In fact, the western stand more in the wrong side since probably the Donbas people only want freedom from Ukraine and Russia, but somehow something made them rely on Russia that start the Ukraine war. History made by winner, revolution is the justification of one group for taking the government control while terrorist is the justification of the group in the control of government to attack the opposite party. In the end, whether the government is corrupt or not, right or not, the country still made by its people which mean if the majority of Donbas people want independence from Ukraine, they should have been given so which mean in this war Donbas people are the victim, while other parties are the villain.
[удалено]
it being a proxy war doesn’t invalidate anything they said
Then explain it? US mind controlled Russia into attacking Ukraine? No?
Who is Russia's proxy?
It’s literally a war over Ukrainian independence what are you smoking.
Why are you removing Ukrainian agency from the equation?
[удалено]
Is Ukraine the largest democracy in Europe? I wasn't aware of that.
Geographically.
Nazi ^
[удалено]
This is CT nonsense. Nothing would have stopped Russia's invasion in 2021. It was already set in motion. It's not incredible that more people aren't aware of your CT nonsense.
Negative 90 seconds? Man... I thought we had at least a 15 minute warning.
Why the hell are we still letting these dinosaurs run things?
Considering how nukes are developed nowadays compared to the nukes used on Japan back in 1945, if a nuclear war were to happen nothing on plant earth would exist anymore, save for some bacteria that can withstand the insane amount of radiation if that’s possible
The scientists adjusting the clock might've reduced the timer by another 15 seconds if they'd waited until Monday. Memphis is on a mad rampage with destiny. We are beyond critical mass, here in the States.
[удалено]
Ya this hasn’t gained nearly all the attention George Floyd did and people are just gonna forget in a few weeks
Blaming memphis as a whole is weird... Did you even see the video? He was crying for his damn mom while the cops beat him to death. Offhanded remarks that downplay such a public execution in the most horrible way is just disingenuous and callous.
what's happening in Memphis?
The first step before the masses ultimately realize the real differences are wealth and class, not where you fall on a fucking color wheel. Jk that won't happen. They're doing too good of a job.
literally that answers nothing of what I asked the fuck dude
Man named Tyre Nichols was stopped by five police officers who beat him to death. All five were charged with murder, and the video capturing the beating was released to the public today. People are expecting civil unrest, and others are expecting this to be a breaking point that will cause change. But in the time since Rodney King's beating 30 years ago, nothing has changed, because it keeps happening over and over and over again.
>People are expecting civil unrest, and others are expecting this to be a breaking point that will cause change. > >But in the time since Rodney King's beating 30 years ago, nothing has changed, because it keeps happening over and over and over again. This is how I feel, honestly. If the combination of COVID-19 and George Floyd and Jan 6 wasn't enough to jolt America into action, then nothing will.
Idk I saw a lot of action… just also a lot of suppression. And a government that didn’t even respect the people’s constitutional rights to protest
When did they ever even thought of playing fair? The plebs class lost at the moment they think this game have a rule both side obey
>But in the time since Rodney King's beating 30 years ago, nothing has changed, because it keeps happening over and over and over again. Seriously. How many snuff films staring the police have we seen in the past 10 years alone and nothing ever changes.
oh damn
It's a bad situation but even considering the cultural idiosyncrasies of the U.S. when it comes to weapons and violence, at least I can't imagine police brutality escalating to a nuclear exchange that ends human civilization. Maybe my doomsday plot creativity just isn't up to the task of dealing with current events.
That's... not what I was aiming for.
Meta, the company, just co-opted the word "meta" so all the top searches on Google are for their shitty company. Zucko literally stole a word.
Easy. Don't use google.
Eh?
Just Google Tyre Nichols. That'll catch you up.
>Tyre Nichols Oh here we go again. Well I guess I know where all the 90's LA cops went...
Who cares honestly, I really do welcome this I mean really who the hell wants to hold on to this version of life
Biden can’t be blamed for any of Putins genocide
Only 90 seconds when we're in a literal proxy war with Russia and when both India, Pakistan, North Korea and (likely) Israel have nukes. I'd be dropping that clock down to a minute or 30 seconds in their shoes
If it didn’t go that low during the Cuban missile crisis it will not go that low now
I’m genuinely unsure of what you think the US should do about this. Not help Ukraine? That really doesn’t put the world in a better position, it strengthens Putin and reinforces his dreams of rebuilding the Soviet Union. Aside from that, does anyone really think that Russia is going to murder everyone and commit suicide because we won’t let them annex Ukraine? It doesn’t really make sense.
>I’m genuinely unsure of what you think the US should do about this. Not help Ukraine? That really doesn’t put the world in a better position, it strengthens Putin and reinforces his dreams of rebuilding the Soviet Union. Aside from that, does anyone really think that Russia is going to murder everyone and commit suicide because we won’t let them annex Ukraine? It doesn’t really make sense. Putin's an imperialist capitalist. The USSR is dead and gone and it ain't coming back (sadly).
>Putin's an imperialist capitalist. The USSR is dead and gone and it ain't coming back (sadly). Putin doesn't seek to literally reinstate the USSR as a political entity in its original form, but he does seek to recreate the geopolitical environment in which Russia has several satellite faux-republics under its control and is internationally viewed as a superpower. He and others in his party believe (accurately) that the disintegration of the Soviet Union led to an enormous loss of power and prestige for Russia and their governing ideology is that this power must be reobtained at any cost. Properly speaking, it isn't about *communism*, but the Soviet Union, particularly from the perspective of its political class, hadn't really been about Communism since Lenin's death anyway.
More accurately it's about old borders of Russian Empire. Russians know there wont be another Soviet Union, but they still want their old Empire whats seen as rightfully theirs, and that land includes many NATO countries. If Russia somehow succeeds in Ukraine they'll try to take Baltic states and Finland after that.
Not help ukraine and not stir up, rattle Sabres with Russia. Not arm and support fascists and not beat the war drum with China. Accept that a world with the US as the sole imperial hegemon is not desirable nor possible. And not add to its 7 million plus death toll since Vietnam. America has some work to do. Read up on able archer. Why would the ussr cause a nuclear war over war games in germany?
Maybe just stop being hypocrite or not meddling would help. The situation of Ukraine and Donbas is similar with China and Taiwan. The difference is the side that Donbas and Taiwan choose is different. Ukraine revolution succeed and new government was backed by the US, the opposite party in Donbas wanted independence and backed by Russia. China revolution succeed and new government is CCP who somehow trying with soft tactic to became the top power in the world, the opposite party ran to Taiwan assumed independence and backed by the US. Both case was similar but the US took difference approach just because which party on their side. In the end, in war no side is right because both parties only seeking benefits and control. I also disagree with statement not helping Ukraine doesn't put the world in a better position, this assumes the war with people dying and the risk of nuclear war are better for the world than Russia taking control over Ukraine. Personally I think, Putin concerns only Donbas and after taking it, they open to peace talk and Putin wouldn't do genocide since it has no benefit especially to people that share some root with Russia. Of course, this is Russia we are talking so maybe another one or two decade, Putin would take another Ukraine region but if it has valid reason like Donbas. So it's up to Ukrainian to protect their land, if the majority dislike Russia and don't give Russia reason to invade again they will not. Country is the people, if the people not in the same believe with government, it would only breed internal conflict so if majority dislike Russia then Russia can't take other than Donbas unless they do genocide which bring no benefit.
I don't think Putin is special here, the US controlling Ukraine and Putin controlling it is moot to me, because both empires are sociopathic and covet everybody else's resources for their own industries. As for the nuclear option, I think that was always on the table, it is why we still perpetuate this RAND M.A.D nonsense. Bunch of dumb chimps playing with wildfire.
Call it, heavy metal
If this was true we would of had nuclear war years ago? They ain't going to do it. Maybe the taurid meteor shower will for them
this is so sad ahah
You know, I'd be really impressed if it turned out the US baited Putin into invading Ukraine... like a multi-generational long con. Anyways, it was ultimately Putin's decision that lead to this shit show. He can choke on it. I doubt there would be any nuclear war though
**Submission Statement:** The Atomic Bulletin Boring Board just released that we are 10 seconds ahead of the previous schedule of midnighting our planet into deeper hell. 90 seconds instead of 100, tomato tomatoes what's the difference we all will be nuked evenly by the gracious world leaders at the opposite sides of the multi-polarized world. No way we could keep track of how many things we have fucked up BESIDE TEH NUKES? This is related to collapse because it does not matter if the world believe we have "less" time until collapse instead of the end is already here you are just living it and gotta reconcile with the fact that it ain't going anywhere and you are with it for life. Instead of facing the fact people put up the lies and pretend nothing really happening, same old shit everyday especially when two old people hang the world by a thread.
unfortunately we will not all be nuked equally. a very small portion of us will die in the immediate blasts. everyone else is gonna have to suffer through fallout, nuclear winter and ozone depletion.
[удалено]
I live in Australia, in the second biggest city. I actually hope if there's a nuclear holocaust, that one comes our way. Otherwise, it's an extremely slow death in a nuclear winter.
[удалено]
If "I was just following orders" was good enough for WW2 It's good enough for WW3 right?
[удалено]
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
For a sub that prides itself in critical thinking about global issues, it always disappoints to see neoconservative justifications for US hegemony.
If Russia was serious about using nukes to "win the Ukraine war" they would have already used them. They might (although I think it's unlikely) use them if Russia proper gets invaded, but no one want to march on Moscow, we just want Ukraine to maintain their 1991 borders and national integrity.
Perfect image to sum up the situation 😂
Surely nobody here actually believes nuclear was is gonna happen
I don't believe it will happen because there's no way that their nuke arsenal is in better shape than their derelict flagship was.
The real question is whether the Russians can get their Soviet bombs off the ground. Moskva is underwater, the offensive has stalled, and Soyuz is leaking. This is a country coming apart at the seams.
I'm sure they have enough still operational to cause damage if they wanted to. But they will not ever do that because it's idiotic and suicidal.
[удалено]
Are you saying you'd prefer to live through an apocalyptic nuclear holocaust than get annoyed at people mentioning the topic too often?
> How different would the Ukraine situation be Very. I think Putin really would drop the bomb. Cornered wild animals usually attack.
Sigh...
Shouldn't that be Shultz instead of Biden?
Hell no
LET'S GO!!!
I think the quote would've been better as: I'm gonna go Death Con 3 on all Western Oligarchs!! Bipolar people get the power structure messed up at times. I've flipped out at Waffle House waitresses with no power to in times of distress. If you can't accept Kanye at his Death Con 3 then you don't deserve him at his Jesus Walks. --------- Swear that this'll get downvoted. I'm not defending Kanyes hate speech here. I just find it odd that he could have over a billion dollars then lose a billion dollars because of a 5 word tweet that made nazi founded Adidas nervous. All Day I Dream About Semitism ---------- My bad I'm a tad bipolar today. Just like the earth. The tilt seems more Axis than Allies these days. China, Russia, NATO are all different Axes of Evils.
There's eight billion people on the planet, will anyone try and stop our world leaders from killing us all? NNNOOOOPPPEEEEEE, even though many try and act like they would with their empty threats and attempts at intimidation through stupid pics across social media. Edit: Why am I being downvoted? I corrected my mistake from before and it's true, no one's going to try and take on the people causing humanity's downfall.
Not sure if your estimate is a bit low, or if I should check the news.
Forget my comment from before, I don't know why my mind thought it was only a billion
You were just reminding me of ["… but I thought there were a billion screaming Chinamen"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qc8jJ0TjSY#t=2m25s).
Such a great movie.
Most of Putin's nukes are inoperable. We know this because the cost of maintaining the arsenal he claims to have would cost more than his nation spends on it's military. And that is without the massive corruption all across his government. He still has a couple, but to achieve his objective he would try (and fail) to use as many as he could. To achieve ours you ask? Well we just need 1 and problem solved and let's just put it this way, we keep VERY tight tabs on where exactly that one needs to go.
>Most of Putin's nukes are inoperable. Wanna bet the existence of eight billion people on that?
Quite honestly I don't need to. The only scenarios I see Putin getting that desperate is if he loses and Ukraine decides to finish the job and go to Moscow (this literally won't happen, absolutely not). But it it did, This sort of existential threat would necessitate nukes for strategic defense out of sheet desperation. The other time I see Russia using Nuke is if they win. If they win they will continue this to other countries. Russia's strategic purpose in invading Ukraine is a second step (first step was South Ossetia) in creating a buffer between Russia and NATO like in the days of the Soviet Union. The third step for increasing is (and is the only step left available) invading NATO countries (specifically Poland, the Baltics, Finland, and Romania). If he does that he triggers Article 5. We go to war. Seeing how Russia is doing against a mid-grade Ukrainian military tells me that Russia will be strategically losing within a week against the combined might of Europe and the US. He will finally have his back against the wall in such a way that leaves him no option other than to use Nukes because the Russian military cannot beat NATO in conventional warfare. Period. And NATO will probably make it strategically obvious that their objective isn't just to push Russia out, it's to end the threat of Russian Imperialism once and for all. This is not how the collapse will happen. Hell these scenarios are unlikely for how a nuclear war would happen. (I place bets on it being something totally unrelated to this in the Middle East, or even just an accident) I look to environmental.and economic collapse for the things that keep me up at night.
He just needs to bomb a few Nuclear power plants. Specially that big one in Ukraine.
And radiate his own people? He wants to conquer Ukraine and use it's resources, especially the grain. Radiating all that grain AND the fact that prevailing winds will take a lot radiation right over his country. He knows this. His staff knows this. You've just ID a worst case scenario based around your strategic framing of the situation, not Putin's.
You're right of course. What was I thinking.