1. I don’t think Samson would show up. Even if the current Israeli government is confident and some are crazy the West (or even some in the US) along some sane ones will stop it getting there. You never know but I highly doubt it. Especially if ...
2. A defeat is inflicted on US forces in the Middle East. It will become clea…
1. I don’t think Samson would show up. Even if the current Israeli government is confident and some are crazy the West (or even some in the US) along some sane ones will stop it getting there. You never know but I highly doubt it. Especially if ...
2. A defeat is inflicted on US forces in the Middle East. It will become clear at that point that big daddy can’t protect Israel anymore. Which will leave it the choice of reaching a negotiated peace or lose everything. Which would mean ...
3. A face saving option is unlikely. This is an existential moment for the West. They know it. Even Biden said it in his Oval Office speech (if you can even call it that). And we know their answer to every existential moment - more war. Also, if a face saving option is given their influence still remain even if diminished which they can use to try to derail or usurp the emerging world order. The other side knows that. Like Austin said “Russia needs to lose and look like it’s losing” - same thing just replace Russia with “the West”.
Unfortunately many (millions) people will die. Many died in unnecessary wars since WW2 ended. Hopefully this will bring about a sufficiently global and lasting peace that their unsolicited sacrifice will not be in vain.
One consideration about thermonuclear war that many people seem to overlook is that, unlike all previous wars, the public and even the political class will be entirely out of the loop. There is no need to build up support through the media and rousing speeches; nor to worry about how things will turn out. Strating a thermonuclear war is precisely analogous to cutting one's throat or jumping off a building - except that it results in death for all humans, not just the one who commits the deed.
Since I very much doubt if any of the players have any religious convictions, they don't even have to worry about the afterlife.
I don't think the sun and the moon give a toss, but otherwise it's fairly accurate. Human psychology is strange; why do some people rejoice so much in destruction and death?
Thanks for pointing out that I did not make myself entirely clear, mendo. It's always a compromise between explaining fully and keeping comments (fairly) short.
My only point is that it would be easier to start a thermonuclear war than a conventional one, because you don't have to plan for the future: there won't be one.
Nor do you really have to go through the tedious process of building up popular support for war - which can always be done, as Goering remarked, but takes time.
Since thermonuclear weapons can be launched instantly in case it becomes necessary to respond to a surprise attack, a political or military leader can start such a war quite easily. Provided he or she doesn't mind dying with everyone else, as thermonuclear war would kill everyone on earth.
In relation to the present state of affairs, that probably just means that we should expect thermonuclear war to be more likely than one might think. In his excellent book "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner", Daniel Ellsberg related how, in about 1960, he was sent on a tour of inspection of US nuclear weapons in the Far East, and discovered to his horror that most of the elaborate safety precautions to prevent a rogue or mistaken launch had simply been disabled. In his view, the only priority of US officers in charge of thermonuclear weapons was to make absolutely sure that if the USA was attacked they would not fail to strike back.
In other words, Western thermonuclear weapons may be on a hair trigger.
> My only point is that it would be easier to start a thermonuclear war than a conventional one, because you don't have to plan for the future: there won't be one.
Well I for one plan to live out my Fallout-like post-nuclear-apocaliptic fantasies so as far as I'm concerned, there will be a future, and if any of the evildoers survive, WE'LL MAKE SURE THEY REGRET THEIR DECISION! I can't go into specifics, but suffice to say human body is very resilient and actually pretty hard to kill, if you catch my drift. ;)
Quick Comments
1. I don’t think Samson would show up. Even if the current Israeli government is confident and some are crazy the West (or even some in the US) along some sane ones will stop it getting there. You never know but I highly doubt it. Especially if ...
2. A defeat is inflicted on US forces in the Middle East. It will become clear at that point that big daddy can’t protect Israel anymore. Which will leave it the choice of reaching a negotiated peace or lose everything. Which would mean ...
3. A face saving option is unlikely. This is an existential moment for the West. They know it. Even Biden said it in his Oval Office speech (if you can even call it that). And we know their answer to every existential moment - more war. Also, if a face saving option is given their influence still remain even if diminished which they can use to try to derail or usurp the emerging world order. The other side knows that. Like Austin said “Russia needs to lose and look like it’s losing” - same thing just replace Russia with “the West”.
Unfortunately many (millions) people will die. Many died in unnecessary wars since WW2 ended. Hopefully this will bring about a sufficiently global and lasting peace that their unsolicited sacrifice will not be in vain.
Even though I do agree with most of what you wrote, I still have some hope :))
But yes, I fully understand you and it is also a very likely scenario.
Unfortunately. We'll see.
Thanks for your comment.
One consideration about thermonuclear war that many people seem to overlook is that, unlike all previous wars, the public and even the political class will be entirely out of the loop. There is no need to build up support through the media and rousing speeches; nor to worry about how things will turn out. Strating a thermonuclear war is precisely analogous to cutting one's throat or jumping off a building - except that it results in death for all humans, not just the one who commits the deed.
Since I very much doubt if any of the players have any religious convictions, they don't even have to worry about the afterlife.
Isaiah 24?
I don't think the sun and the moon give a toss, but otherwise it's fairly accurate. Human psychology is strange; why do some people rejoice so much in destruction and death?
Not sure what do you mean - could you point out more directly, what your expectations of future events are?
Thanks for pointing out that I did not make myself entirely clear, mendo. It's always a compromise between explaining fully and keeping comments (fairly) short.
My only point is that it would be easier to start a thermonuclear war than a conventional one, because you don't have to plan for the future: there won't be one.
Nor do you really have to go through the tedious process of building up popular support for war - which can always be done, as Goering remarked, but takes time.
Since thermonuclear weapons can be launched instantly in case it becomes necessary to respond to a surprise attack, a political or military leader can start such a war quite easily. Provided he or she doesn't mind dying with everyone else, as thermonuclear war would kill everyone on earth.
In relation to the present state of affairs, that probably just means that we should expect thermonuclear war to be more likely than one might think. In his excellent book "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner", Daniel Ellsberg related how, in about 1960, he was sent on a tour of inspection of US nuclear weapons in the Far East, and discovered to his horror that most of the elaborate safety precautions to prevent a rogue or mistaken launch had simply been disabled. In his view, the only priority of US officers in charge of thermonuclear weapons was to make absolutely sure that if the USA was attacked they would not fail to strike back.
In other words, Western thermonuclear weapons may be on a hair trigger.
> My only point is that it would be easier to start a thermonuclear war than a conventional one, because you don't have to plan for the future: there won't be one.
Well I for one plan to live out my Fallout-like post-nuclear-apocaliptic fantasies so as far as I'm concerned, there will be a future, and if any of the evildoers survive, WE'LL MAKE SURE THEY REGRET THEIR DECISION! I can't go into specifics, but suffice to say human body is very resilient and actually pretty hard to kill, if you catch my drift. ;)
But I understand your comment and see it true.