• Lester_Peterson [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    5 months ago

    I used to think that one of the worst takeaway of the Nuclear Arms race was that if you do nothing about an existential threat to humanity long enough, it will eventually go away. Now I realize the average Western leader who lived through the Cold War has decided its real meaning is that the risks of nuclear weapons don’t need to be taken seriously because there’s no chance they’ll ever be used.

  • FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    5 months ago

    How are europeans not marching to take those ppl out of power and dismantle this shit? Arent you guys afraid of the conflict?

    • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Generally:

      • People believe the propaganda that China is doing something threatening, though I don’t get what that would be.
      • They lived thru the cold war so they think nothing will happen and there’s no reason to worry (because apparently the reason nothing happened during the cold war was that those who were against nuclear holocaust did nothing instead of political agitation and a lot more).
      • They say something like “eh they’re just doing it to get reelected, besides all politicians are bad”
    • sgtlion [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      5 months ago

      Plenty countries marched for it en masse decades ago. Nothing changed. Marching achieves nothing anymore, not even riots (see: French pension law).

      Violent political suppression is just too strong in Europe, the people have little say anymore, even with direct action.

      • EatPotatoes [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 months ago

        Like the 80s were wild. Incredible movies like threads or testament. Stay at home moms tiring themselves to military base gates and intercepting shipments and waste dumps.

        None of it worked and we got so complacent when the Cold War ended. Nothing threatens them. Unions and direct action campaigns are honeypots waiting to be turned inside out.

      • lemmyseizethemeans
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        Organize unionize strike is the power we have until the proletariat is ready for armed struggle

    • Brickardo@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      Rather, we’ve ostracized the countries who know full well the power resides in the working class (for instance the French)

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I mean they haven’t had much luck with testing launching the nukes, I think only one out of four actually launched?

        • sexywheat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          ·
          5 months ago

          I mean, you’re probably right, but the main threat of nuclear war is nuclear winter - that is, if a major (or several major) city(ies) get nuked, the smoke plume from the concrete and charred remains will blanket the Earth for years to come, thereby preventing crops from growing and decimating agricultural production. Same shit happened with the dinosaurs (but this would be self-inflicted)

        • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          5 months ago

          We have absolutely no idea how nuclear warfare and fallout will interact with the already unstoppable climate change trend. Maybe its just me but IMO those old theories about how someone in New Zealand is going to survive in a bunker is just extreme copium, borderline delusion.

          • someone [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            Maybe its just me but IMO those old theories about how someone in New Zealand is going to survive in a bunker is just extreme copium, borderline delusion.

            Unless the bunker-dwellers have a foolproof air supply independent from surface construction, they were always high on copium anyway. Some concrete down the vents will end their secret-bunker fantasies real quick.

  • jackmarxist [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    5 months ago

    NATO demonstrates why the solution to the Fermi Paradox is that civilisations destroy themselves before they become an interstellar civilisation.

    • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      5 months ago

      When I first saw that title I thought this was about Russia, then I saw that preview sentence and it’s like why the heck are you pulling the nukes out on China? And why nukes? Is genocide Europe’s answer to everything?

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 months ago

      China needs to urgently reassess its no first strike policy and then number of warheads it publicly claims to have. It’s rapidly becoming clear that both are seen by NATO only as a sign of weakness and not as a genuine desire for peaceful coexistence.

      If NATO wages nuclear war on China then it will not stop until Chinese civilization is wiped from existence. The proportionate counter value threat to that is not China wiping out the US, or the UK, or France, but all colonial vestiges of Western civilization, irrespective of whether or not those vestigages are nominally participating in the war. 300, 600, or even 1000 warheads are clearly not sufficient to carry out this exchange.

      • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        300, 600, or even 1000 warheads are clearly not sufficient to carry out this exchange

        what the fuck are you talking about. ‘the problem with 2,000+ nuclear warheads exploding is that it wouldn’t do enough damage’. go embrace a loved one or something this is disturbing shit to say

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Just because it’s disturbing doesn’t mean it can’t also be true. If two guys are staring each other down with guns, the fear of the other guy shooting back is the main thing that stops either guy from taking the first shot. But if one guy thought the other was out of bullets? Or that their bullets can’t get through his armor? Why not take a shot?

          America is entering a domestic and international death spiral. The best way to keep it from using it’s nukes on the way down is to let every American know on no uncertain terms that if they try, they die.

          • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            for this to be true it must be demonstrated that the very large stockpile & tot-for-tat meetings of american escalations from the Soviets meaningfully altered US belligerency. i do not think this is a clear or correct conclusion to draw from the cold war.

            • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              It’s probably not super helpful to debate counterfactuals since they’re not probable either way. I do think it’s reasonable to say that Russia’s nuclear stockpile deters NATO escalations in Ukraine even to this day. But again, not provable unless you’ve sat in on some top level NATO meetings.

      • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        If NATO wages nuclear war on China then it will not stop until Chinese civilization is wiped from existence.

        FIFY. The US had plans to nuke China in the event the US waged nuclear war against the Soviet Union. It didn’t matter if the US wasn’t nominally at war with China. When US nukes start flying, some of them will land in China. I suppose you could call this a “zeroth strike policy” in the sense that the US will strike China even if the US isn’t at war with China.

  • JayTreeman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    5 months ago

    Talking with a friend who’s very anti china and Russia, I asked what it would take for him to think that NATO was pushing Russia to use a nuke. ‘Nuclear sabre rattling’ was his response. Well, here you go friend.

      • JayTreeman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ja

        I haven’t been convinced that was done by the Americans. Is it a thing they’ve done in the past? Yes. Do they have reason to do it now? Yes. Have I seen anything outside of anti-american sources talk about it? No.

        I try and give people a lot of leeway IRL. I always hope that helps convince people

  • healthkick@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    5 months ago

    Who the fuck is Stoltenberg to make this decision for Europe?

    I hate AfD and the other right wing parties of Europe, they’re definitely fascist and a bad thing for Europe.

    But fuck man at least they don’t want nuclear war.

    I’m not even asking for an actually socialist left anymore just give me some centrist socdems who aren’t willing to send us all to the wall for the sake of US imperialism. Why is even that too much to ask?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 months ago

      Indeed, like the bar is so low at this point that the choice between parties that want a nuclear holocaust and those that don’t.