Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A relatively modest, survivable and endurable diminishment, strikes more fear (and rage, and frustration) in me, than something outright horrific. I would rather that a nuclear bomb be dropped directly on me, than to see a handful of tactical nukes get dropped on Ukraine, if that means a 30% drop in the stock market.
So, am I reading this right. You'd rather die than lose 30% of you money?
I am going to keep politics out of this and make a few points about the actual risk profile. Trigger warning: if you'd rather cope by not contemplate this at all, please skip this post. Personally, it helps me to know what I'm actually dealing with, and it actually is not as bad as it used to be ... albeit, still bad enough.
Since the Cuban crisis (and since Threads) the nature of nuclear war strategy has changed significantly due to the strategic arms limitation (SALT) treaties. Both the USSR and Russia have far fewer warheads and now favor smaller-yield weapons, precision-targeted to land-based launch sites (so ironically places like South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana will bear the brunt of the first wave, followed by non-nuclear military installations). They have to work with fewer total warheads, so it is not the old doctrine of blanketing every city of any size. It is more taking out the military and causing panic everywhere else. I guess in a sort of left-handed way the SALT talks were helpful here.
This doesn't mean they won't use a few high-yield weapons on places like NYC and LA.
We have some intercept capability now, but it is pretty minimal and untested. There are, I understand, all of two launch silos defending the whole east coast. So this will not be a significant help.
If you don't live near or downwind of a military installation what you will actually be coping with is some radiation levels (though not necessarily a radiation emergency), some uncertain level of "nuclear winter" lasting around a decade, and disruption of supply chains, including food production, which will, as usual, fall the heaviest on the poor and disadvantaged. The biggest problem in those areas will be the psychological impact.
Wow, I did not realize that is where our launch sites are... Hmmm.. I am not sure I want to live in a post Nuclear bombed out world. Are you sure it would be survivable (with all the fallout)? It seems pretty dooms day to me.
BTW, I did not have to decide how I was going to deal with this because an older friend of mine decided to check in with me every day or two (which we have never done before). We are just chatting about various topics up and down the spectrum. I have not spent much time with people since C-19 happened. So, anyways, someone decided for me. ??
I am slightly younger than you OP and can remember several times in my life where nuclear war was a possibility. How soon we forget, you and I lived through the cold war, no? "first time in my life within the real of possibilities..." Seriously? Were you living in a cave without TV and newspapers from the 60s to 80s? The risk now is way lower than anytime in my first 30 years of life, no comparison.
Did you know there are some 30 armed conflicts going on in the world today, basically - wars. This one is actually one of the less bloody ones. Ukraine is getting lots of publicity because it effects western Europe and involves the aggression of an old adversary, and it has economic impact. Also obviously because the aggressor has nuclear weapons. But others too, you just don't hear about it...
So if and when this one ends, let's hope soon, will you be nervous about the other 29 armed conflicts? What are you going to do when Iran and N. Korea obtain ballistic missile capability to carry there nukes? Does everyone forget that only a few years ago North Korea threatened the destruction of the US with nuclear weapons (not that they were capable yet)? Are you worrying about conflicts between two nuclear armed countries, Pakistan and India, in Kashmir? Nope I didn't think so.
Worry about things you can control, don't give in to fear mongering, and keeps things in context.
I am slightly younger than you OP and can remember several times in my life where nuclear war was a possibility. How soon we forget, you and I lived through the cold war, no? "first time in my life within the real of possibilities..." Seriously? Were you living in a cave without TV and newspapers from the 60s to 80s? The risk now is way lower than anytime in my first 30 years of life, no comparison.
Did you know there are some 30 armed conflicts going on in the world today, basically - wars. This one is actually one of the less bloody ones. Ukraine is getting lots of publicity because it effects western Europe and involves the aggression of an old adversary, and it has economic impact. Also obviously because the aggressor has nuclear weapons. But others too, you just don't hear about it...
So if and when this one ends, let's hope soon, will you be nervous about the other 29 armed conflicts? What are you going to do when Iran and N. Korea obtain ballistic missile capability to carry there nukes? Does everyone forget that only a few years ago North Korea threatened the destruction of the US with nuclear weapons (not that they were capable yet)? Are you worrying about conflicts between two nuclear armed countries, Pakistan and India, in Kashmir? Nope I didn't think so.
Worry about things you can control, don't give in to fear mongering, and keeps things in context.
There was rhetoric about nuclear war but I was too young to register the Cuban missile crisis and I read about a couple of near-miss accidental launches far after the fact.
Various armed conflicts tend to be contained or internal conflicts. This is a conflict where a nuclear power is directly involved, other nuclear powers are indirectly involved, including the other big one, and the chances of escalation are fairly high, especially given that Putin's clearly signaled goal is the reconstitution of Mother Russia, which would have to include the recapture of several nations currently in NATO. He has also explicitly threatened us with nukes already, in only slightly oblique terms.
So it's a false equivalency. Yemen isn't threatening to turn into WW3. Israel's bullying of the palestinians isn't threatening to turn into WW3. The situation in Burma isn't threatening to turn into WW3. The only other possibility is if China attacks Taiwan.
There are distinctives about this conflict that you are ignoring. And to the point of this thread, that's ONE way of dealing with it. Pretend that it's No Problemo. It works, until it doesn't.
I admit there's not a ton that's personally actionable for me here and that's why, as a generally non-anxious person, this is more of a low-grade dread-concern for me than something that is actively keeping me up nights, particularly since I'm located such that it's highly likely I'd survive the immediate aftermath of an attack on the US, whatever good that would do me.
It seems to be bothering a significant # of people though. Right now the four FDA-approved sources of potassium iodine pills are sold out, as are almost all purveyors of gieger counters and quite a lot of basic survival gear. Make of that what you will. I take those things as bellwethers. Personally my philosophy on those kinds of preparations is that this is a far bigger issue than me and if I get to the point of needing such things I'm already screwed. So ... I'm not into it, but it is interesting that, without any general panic, a significant # of people are already trying to hedge their bets. It's also significant that the various retired generals and other talking heads, when this risk is put to them, aren't denying it. They are careful not to be bug-eyed about it and not panic people, but they are not pooh-poohing it like you are, either. And that's a good thing. I want my leaders clear-eyed about the actual threat.
Wow, I did not realize that is where our launch sites are... Hmmm.. I am not sure I want to live in a post Nuclear bombed out world. Are you sure it would be survivable (with all the fallout)? It seems pretty dooms day to me.
No, I'm not sure. It isn't as bad as I thought, in the sense that I hadn't really updated my understanding of current nuclear strategies since the cold war era. My family would probably survive first and second and third wave attacks because we are in a small city with no industry and no military installations nearby; the closest targets would probably be about 200 miles downwind of us. I doubt that a radiation emergency would be declared here. But ... the fact that the sun will still be shining and the birds singing the next day doesn't mean it would be a cakewalk. I would expect a complete supply chain collapse and food scarcity, somewhat higher radiation levels, some degree of nuclear winter for about a decade after. It would wipe out billions of people indirectly over time, from the knock-on effects, mostly the poorest and most vulnerable. It is already taking a psychological toll on those already struggling with personal issues. It's a big damned problem almost no matter how it ultimately plays out.
As we're already seeing here, some people will just call this doom-saying. That is how they've handled the climate crisis and Covid and a lot of other things. They just choose not to see it. I call this "toxic positivity" because it takes anyone who buys into it out of any substantive efforts to change or improve things. It is ultimately really an "i've got mine, fk you" stance when its not simply "I can't handle the truth, so I deny it".
I have discussed this on my social media accounts with people who actually think we have an intercept capability and so it's zero threat. (We don't; we might knock out 2% of the incoming. It wasn't designed for a full scale attack. Also, it's not battle-tested).
The only reason I'm a bit sanguine in a sense about this is because it's not very actionable for me, or for most people, personally. These are decisions being taken by our fearless leaders on all sides, and so the only thing I can do is understand the actual facts and demystify them for myself, and hope for the best.
There was rhetoric about nuclear war but I was too young to register the Cuban missile crisis and I read about a couple of near-miss accidental launches far after the fact.
Various armed conflicts tend to be contained or internal conflicts. This is a conflict where a nuclear power is directly involved, other nuclear powers are indirectly involved, including the other big one, and the chances of escalation are fairly high, especially given that Putin's clearly signaled goal is the reconstitution of Mother Russia, which would have to include the recapture of several nations currently in NATO. He has also explicitly threatened us with nukes already, in only slightly oblique terms.
So it's a false equivalency. Yemen isn't threatening to turn into WW3. Israel's bullying of the palestinians isn't threatening to turn into WW3. The situation in Burma isn't threatening to turn into WW3. The only other possibility is if China attacks Taiwan.
There are distinctives about this conflict that you are ignoring. And to the point of this thread, that's ONE way of dealing with it. Pretend that it's No Problemo. It works, until it doesn't.
I admit there's not a ton that's personally actionable for me here and that's why, as a generally non-anxious person, this is more of a low-grade dread-concern for me than something that is actively keeping me up nights, particularly since I'm located such that it's highly likely I'd survive the immediate aftermath of an attack on the US, whatever good that would do me.
It seems to be bothering a significant # of people though. Right now the four FDA-approved sources of potassium iodine pills are sold out, as are almost all purveyors of gieger counters and quite a lot of basic survival gear. Make of that what you will. I take those things as bellwethers. Personally my philosophy on those kinds of preparations is that this is a far bigger issue than me and if I get to the point of needing such things I'm already screwed. So ... I'm not into it, but it is interesting that, without any general panic, a significant # of people are already trying to hedge their bets. It's also significant that the various retired generals and other talking heads, when this risk is put to them, aren't denying it. They are careful not to be bug-eyed about it and not panic people, but they are not pooh-poohing it like you are, either. And that's a good thing. I want my leaders clear-eyed about the actual threat.
You are very selective in your response. I see you ignored the mention of Iran, N. Korea, or Pakistan. And the cold war I grew up with we lived in constant threat of nuclear war, forget the Cuban Missile Crises. I was too young as well. The threat was much higher then during the cold war era, but I was not preoccupied with it. The current crises does not warrant undo stress compared to those times. There is a risk sure, but there is a far greater risk you will be killed in a car accident this week, or die in some natural disaster, or be a victim of violent crime, or dozens of other tragic events that may occur.
Maybe for you, there is always the prepper forum. You can buy a bunker in the wilds of Idaho, collect cans of beans, and invest in faraday cages...It good to be prepared sure. I would advise one to look out for your investments however and modify as needed as the impact currently is economic. But really iodine pills and Geiger counters or the survivalist bunkers? Come on.
It's not a matter of handling war, but handling anxiety. Do your own personal threat assessment and you will find that this is really low on the totem pole.
You are very selective in your response. I see you ignored the mention of Iran, N. Korea, or Pakistan. And the cold war I grew up with we lived in constant threat of nuclear war, forget the Cuban Missile Crises. I was too young as well. The threat was much higher then during the cold war era, but I was not preoccupied with it. The current crises does not warrant undo stress compared to those times. There is a risk sure, but there is a far greater risk you will be killed in a car accident this week, or die in some natural disaster, or be a victim of violent crime, or dozens of other tragic events that may occur.
Maybe for you, there is always the prepper forum. You can buy a bunker in the wilds of Idaho, collect cans of beans, and invest in faraday cages...It good to be prepared sure. I would advise one to look out for your investments however and modify as needed as the impact currently is economic. But really iodine pills and Geiger counters or the survivalist bunkers? Come on.
It's not a matter of handling war, but handling anxiety. Do your own personal threat assessment and you will find that this is really low on the totem pole.
I think if you carefully read my response you'll see that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm not a prepper. Whatever angst I have about this, whether you agree I should or not, I handle by being informed, asking myself what, if anything is actionable, and adjusting accordingly. I'm not into a phallus-waving contest about who is right or wrong here. Frankly I hope you're overly pessimistic, rather than me. That would be excellent.
...
Worry about things you can control, don't give in to fear mongering, and keeps things in context.
This makes perfect sense as an abstract maxim... as printed on a fortune cookie. But in daily reality we find a spectrum of things, from those entirely within our purview, to those entirely outside of it, and anything in between. For example, whether I get cancer is mainly the result of physiological activity in my body, and not say my conscious thoughts. But losing weight, avoiding direct exposure to sunlight, not smoking and so on, are actionable things that improve our chances. So if we disregard those things, we've failed or at least faltered in our little portion of the control--not-control spectrum. How do we feel about that? Are we OK with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
... Make of that what you will. I take those things as bellwethers. Personally my philosophy on those kinds of preparations is that this is a far bigger issue than me and if I get to the point of needing such things I'm already screwed. So ... I'm not into it, but it is interesting that, without any general panic, a significant # of people are already trying to hedge their bets. ...
America has always had a vibrant "prepper culture". Witness the surge in gun-purchases in response to certain political news. If only a few million Americans are thus inclined, that's enough to substantially affect the economics of gun sales, gas mask sales and so on. It doesn't mean that a plurality of Americans are scared enough to take such concerted actions.
But to your point, if a potential disaster is utterly devastating, there's little to be done to prepare. Such impotence is as it were liberating. We just acquiesce to the inevitable. It's the smaller crises, like a hurricane threatening to bear down on us, that spur us to action... or if not active, we feel guilty over our lassitude and lack of foresight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
You are very selective in your response. I see you ignored the mention of Iran, N. Korea, or Pakistan. And the cold war I grew up with we lived in constant threat of nuclear war, forget the Cuban Missile Crises.
Let’s not forget the first half of the Reagan administration… the “Evil Empire” speech, and the Soviet shooting-down of Korean Air flight 007 (right around 40 years ago, if memory serves). It was a tense time.
Long ago, I saw a motion picture called 'Threads', which is about nuclear war. The plot centers around the city of Sheffield and its fate in the face of a 3,000 MT East-West nuclear exchange. The trigger event was a showdown between the US and USSR over Iran.
I was never the same after viewing it - and it has stayed with me for close to 40 years now.
I viewed again recently... and it still shocks me as much as it did then.
Something of interest I noted. In the film, the war occurred on Thursday May 26. This year, May 26 is, you guessed it, a Thursday.
Is 'Threads' an omen? We shall see...
I watch that flick from time to time. What scared me the most about it? How the Brit government turned totalitarian before the bombs, well MIRVs, dropped.
Just for a bit of perspective, if I recall correctly, Threads was about a Shah's Iran, not the current country. The Day After and On the Beach (2000) were over Taiwan. On the Beach (1959), movie wise, was "accidental" in that for the "system" that had been built, we lost control of it in interpreting an attack and responding, theoretically. That is, in the movie, they didn't really know how it started. In the book, a country flying Soviet export bombers, maybe Il-28 Beagles, bombed the US, the aircraft were mis id'd as Soviet, the war started, and by the time the mistake was found, it was too late. Ie, "MY GOD, you mean we bombed the Soviet Union by mistake?".
As far as Trinity's Child (book), By Dawn's Early Light (movie), I'll leave that one aside for now.
Otherwise, the current situation does not bug me. The affairs of the Cold War bugged me more. The government bugs me more but the prospect that the world is about to be buried under fall out ash?
NAW!
If it is, C'est la vie.......but I think enough heads around the world, even in his own military, see this as the actions of one man and if the order came down to them, they will not obey. If some missiles fly, I don't the world will respond like the missile maps in Wargames (1983).
Let’s not forget the first half of the Reagan administration… the “Evil Empire” speech, and the Soviet shooting-down of Korean Air flight 007 (right around 40 years ago, if memory serves). It was a tense time.
I do remember that. I remember a few tense times, invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was pretty tense and very similar to this current situation. There have been a few close calls with NORAD glitches, etc in the late 70s and early 80s. In Vietnam, American air crews were often in combat with Russian air crews, or dodging Russian manned SAM sites. Today is NOTHING like during that cold war period thank God, and now Russia although nuclear armed is a shadow of it's former self. In 1985 there were an amazing and horrifying 70,000 nuclear armed warheads in the world, now there are about 12,000.
We mentioned the prepper culture. CityData has the prepper forum and I get a laugh sometimes when I visit that forum but then again I respect the independence that they have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
