Surviving a nuclear war

Feb 2014
2,804
1,262
Oregon
#1

I think that video is pretty immature but it may get a discussion going. Personally, I know I do not have that many years left with or without a nuclear war, so my concern is not my own personal survival, but the survival of all that is good about humanity. Under the video is the suggestion of surviving in a nuclear sub and that seems the most interesting possibility to me. However, this would be best if it were linked with ports that could assure the survival of libraries and the record of human accomplishments. Forget the immature idea of surviving as cannibals and lawlessness. What do we want to pass on to those who might survive a nuclear war?
 
Dec 2016
5,468
2,782
Canada
#3

I think that video is pretty immature but it may get a discussion going. Personally, I know I do not have that many years left with or without a nuclear war, so my concern is not my own personal survival, but the survival of all that is good about humanity. Under the video is the suggestion of surviving in a nuclear sub and that seems the most interesting possibility to me. However, this would be best if it were linked with ports that could assure the survival of libraries and the record of human accomplishments. Forget the immature idea of surviving as cannibals and lawlessness. What do we want to pass on to those who might survive a nuclear war?
That was fun:D:lol: and appropriately absurd! Too bad that many of the superrich -- members of the transnational capitalist class, who are the people who have the real decision-making power in a world of bought-and-paid-for politicians are also bizarre combinations of narcissists and sociopaths (just like Donald) who believe that winner-take-all is the way to go! And what's worse...according to the author of this Medium blog post I posted in a thread two months ago--Survival Of The Richest..Douglas Rushkoff discovers how it ends for the rest of us, they think they are rich enough, smart enough, unique enough to survive in a world where everyone else is incinerated by some combination of nuclear war/environmental apocalypse: SURVIVAL OF THE RICHEST: The wealthy are plotting to leave us behind by Douglas Rushkoff:
.................That’s when it hit me: At least as far as these gentlemen were concerned, this was a talk about the future of technology. Taking their cue from Elon Musk colonizing Mars, Peter Thiel reversing the aging process, or Sam Altman and Ray Kurzweil uploading their minds into supercomputers, they were preparing for a digital future that had a whole lot less to do with making the world a better place than it did with transcending the human condition altogether and insulating themselves from a very real and present danger of climate change, rising sea levels, mass migrations, global pandemics, nativist panic, and resource depletion. For them, the future of technology is really about just one thing: escape. .................​
Why wouldn't the men who wield the real power in our globalized business world through their multi-billion dollar asset management funds and their array of NGO's, devote their time and resources to making the world a better place, instead of looking for cheats to escape the apocalypse and live a diminished life in a bomb shelter with a few guards or some similar scenario? Get's back to that saying I forget who originated it:
It's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism!
 
Likes: imaginethat
Dec 2016
5,468
2,782
Canada
#5
I forgot all about this story I was going to open a thread for earlier this week:
If You Want Peace, Prepare for Nuclear War
A Strategy for the New Great-Power Rivalry

By Elbridge Colby

Elbridge Colby is a "strategic global affairs analyst" which I assume means insane bastard who could have walked right out of the screen from the Kubrick classic: Doctor Strangelove! His editorial posted in the arms merchant funded journal "Foreign Affairs" is mostly behind a paywall, but the dedicated Trotskyites at WSWS seem to have been alarmed enough to post more details:
US missile treaty withdrawal: “Prepare for nuclear war”

24 October 2018
On Saturday, US President Donald Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which prohibited Washington and Moscow from developing short- and medium-range missiles.​
It is difficult to overstate the criminality and recklessness of this action. The lives of billions of people in Europe and East Asia have been deliberately placed in the crossfire of Washington’s nuclear buildup against Beijing and Moscow.​
American military planners are intent on not only building, but using, nuclear weapons in combat. They aim to demonstrate to their potential adversaries that no humanitarian or moral constraints exist for them, and that Washington out-does its rivals not just in weapons, but in bloodlust.​
These plans are being laid in secret. The New York Times has treated the US withdrawal from the treaty as a non-issue. It was not even front-page news, and the newspaper published no editorial or columns about it. Nor was it discussed on the Sunday talk shows.​
The Democrats have been almost entirely silent on the consequences, and the danger of global war—or any opposition to war—has been excluded as an issue from the 2018 midterm elections, just two weeks away.​
In the foreign policy press and the publications of think tanks, however, nuclear war is a preeminent issue. Even before the White House’s announcement, Foreign Affairs dedicated its current issue to a discussion of nuclear war, with its cover featuring a missile launch.​
The issue features a column by Elbridge A. Colby, one of the principal authors of the National Defense Strategy published by the Pentagon in January, which proclaimed the effective end of the “war on terror” and the beginning of “great-power competition.”​
Colby, the former deputy assistant secretary for strategy and force development, titled his article, “If You Want Peace, Prepare for Nuclear War.” He writes: “The risks of nuclear brinkmanship may be enormous, but so is the payoff from gaining a nuclear advantage over an opponent.”​
“Any future confrontation with Russia or China could go nuclear,” Colby warns. “In a harder-fought, more uncertain struggle, each combatant may be tempted to reach for the nuclear saber to up the ante and test the other side’s resolve, or even just to keep fighting.”​
A sane person would see this as an argument for the abolition of nuclear weapons. But in the minds of the Pentagon’s professional killers, it speaks to the urgent need to build and use such weapons.​
“The best way to avoid a nuclear war,” Colby writes, “is to be ready to fight a limited one.” In this dangerous world, “US officials,” Colby writes, must demonstrate that "the United States is prepared to conduct limited, effective nuclear operations.”​
In other words, Mr. Colby is advocating the use of nuclear weapons in combat, not as a doomsday scenario, but in an escalation of a conventional military conflict, whether in the Baltics against Russia, or in the Eastern Pacific against China.​
There is an insanity to such arguments, but it is an insanity that has an objective basis. The capitalist world order, choking on the insoluble conflict between the nation-state and the global economy, is leading mankind toward a catastrophe.​
While the INF treaty is with Russia, a major calculation behind the Trump administration’s withdrawal from it relates to the growing conflict with China. In an article hailing the decision, the National Interest called the move “China’s New Nightmare.” Washington, the journal wrote, risks “becoming significantly ‘out sticked’ in the ongoing ‘range war’ between military systems designed to safely control the increasingly unfriendly seas and skies of the Western Pacific.”​
“US withdrawal from INF, however, could help reverse this dynamic,” it states, adding, “New American conventional systems… could be stationed in unsinkable, out-of-the-way locales” such as Japan, the Philippines and Australia.​
But while these countries are “unsinkable,” they are home to hundreds of millions of people. The populations living near such missile bases will be told, of course, that nuclear war is unlikely, even as policymakers, in secret documents, plan out exactly how many millions will die.​

I'm also reminded that last year, when former RAND Corporation and Pentagon analyst - Daniel Ellsberg published his book - The Doomsday Machine, he said in the few interviews he was asked for by fringe media that he wanted to get the book out before his end came (he's 87 now) that covered some of the until now, classified work he was doing for RAND back in the late 50's to early 60's...wherein at a time when the Government officials were declaring that 'nobody wants to start a nuclear war' and 'no one knows what the consequences of a full scale nuclear war with Russia or China would be, the Pentagon had all the statisticians, analysts and assorted bean-counters at work on calculations of what the likely scenarios of post-nuclear war fallout would be. They wanted best case through to worse case scenarios, since the planners were seriously considering possible first strike scenarios if they felt casualties were within the 'acceptable' range! In Ellsberg's and others work, they were looking at ballpark figures of 600 million casualties in total, and this was almost two decades before the concept of Nuclear Winter was added to the fallout scenario.

Do assholes like this Elbridge Colby believe they can intercept enough Russian and/or Chinese ICBM's to make first strike nuclear war a viable US option? Just the fact that assholes in high places have think tank policy analysts out there advocating for such scenarios should send chills....if largest ever wargames doesn't do the job! While on the other side of the world, a Russian professor who runs some sort of equivalent military strategy think tank - Konstantin Sivkov advises that Russia has a lethal deterence even if just one of their H-bombs gets through to the US mainland:
‘US would be history if Russia nukes Yellowstone volcano with mega-bombs’ – expert

Russia must develop the capability to destroy the US in a single swift blow if it wants to persuade the Americans to end the nuclear arms race and return to the negotiating table, military expert Konstantin Sivkov said.​
In order to curb the aggression from the West, Moscow shouldn’t compete with Washington in number of nukes, Sivkov wrote in a new article. The president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems believes that an “asymmetrical response”would work much better for Russia, as it is able to produce nuclear weapons with a yield of more than 100 megatons.​
If “areas with critically dangerous geophysical conditions in the US (like the Yellowstone Supervolcano or the San Andreas Fault)” are targeted by those warheads, “such an attack guarantees the destruction of the US as a state and the entire transnational elite,” he said.​
The production of around 40 or 50 such mega-warheads for ICBMs or extra-long-range torpedoes would make sure that at least a few of them reach their target no matter how a nuclear conflict between the US and Russia develops, the expert said.​
Such scenario “again makes a large-scale nuclear war irrational and reduces the chances of its breakout to zero,” Sivkov said.​
Everyone feel better now!!!!
 
Likes: imaginethat

Similar Discussions