undefined

points

by stackghost3 hours ago |

comments

by esseph2 hours ago|

[-]

And a rapid increase in construction for new Chinese nuclear launch silos and actual underground nuclear testing.

Things are getting spicy.

by UncleOxidant2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I think there's a compelling case to be made that WW3 started in 2014 when Putin invaded Crimea.

by bryanlarsen2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If so, we haven't hit the equivalent of Sept 1 1939 yet. That's when WW2 is generally considered to have started, but residents of Manchuria, Austria and the Sudetenland probably consider it to have started earlier.

by soperj2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's only considered to have started then because that's when France and Britain declared war on Germany, and that's who wrote the history books.

by bryanlarsen1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Sep 1 1939 is when it escalated from a small number of 2-party wars to a massive multi-party war. It's not the day the war started, it's the day it became a "World War".

by esseph2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

China supplying weapons to Iran and Russia. North Korea sending troops to Russia to fight in Ukraine, and along with Russia, conducting hybrid warfare across Europe and the United States. The US sending weapons to Ukraine and other EU allies. SOF from MANY countries operating in conflict zones and deep inside China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran.

The only thing that hasn't really happened is a full economic mobilization. And Russia... may be close to that.

by soperj2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Putin started before that in 2008 when he invaded Georgia and no one said anything.

by lovich1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I’m not sure it’s a world war but Pax Americana definitely died then.

by achenet58 minutes ago|

prev|

[-]

> As for WW3, well, there's a diaper-wearing senile old man, with an inferiority complex to boot, in charge of a nuclear arsenal and major conventional forces.

Wait, which one are you talking about?

Putin? Trump? Nethanyayu? Kim Jong-un?

by miroljub3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> As for WW3, well, there's a diaper-wearing senile old man, with an inferiority complex to boot, in charge of a nuclear arsenal and major conventional forces.

How naive one must be to consider this NPC as the biggest threat to human kind since the dawn of man.

It's not that single person who threatens the world, it's the complete American elite and the whole American society who push for wars and more wars, and the current NPC of the day in the office is just their tool.

by II2II2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> It's not that single person who threatens the world

The question is: is he enabling them, or are they enabling him? I suppose it could be working in both directions. That said: while the "elite" were problematic before his second rise to power, they were also more constrained.

I also have some question as to who the elite are? Certain individuals are more prominent these days, while others have faded in the background. While it may feel good to apply a singular label to the wealthy (or any other group we disagree with), they are not a single ideological entity. It's probably more beneficial to align ourselves with those who agree with us, rather than alienating them based upon a metric that is only tangentially related to their values.

by sanguinesphinx2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It depends on how closely you tie the metrics and the values. Do you consider someone becoming a billionaire/trillionaire a reflection of their values or just a metric they happen to have?

by II2II1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Both. A person who places the interests of others above their own and lacks ambition is unlikely to achieve wealth in their life. Yet that doesn't mean a wealthy person has limitless ambition, nor does a willingness to place their interests above others mean that they are willing to sacrifice others in their own interest. While one needs to hold certain values to acquire or maintain wealth, there is still an element of "luck" to it (even if part of that luck has to be manufactured).

Take someone like Gates. He is a famously immoral businessman. Kildall once remarked that he had the urge to keep one hand on his wallet and the other on his source code listings when in Gates' presence. Yet Gates also has an interest in the human condition, something he has backed with both influence and money. I have no doubt that his rationale behind these interests differ from his less wealthy kin, but that is not sufficient reason to disregard it just because of his wealth. Now contrast that to someone like Musk. He has arguably done more for the environment by actually getting electric vehicles into mass production and he has arguably done more for science (without actually doing scientific research) through financing the development of launch vehicles. That said, it is doubtful that he has any form of grasp on reality. His morality appears to be of the sort where a pacifist wouldn't trust themselves in Musk's presence.

Anyhow, I've forgotten where I was going beyond that. Hopefully it is enough to illustrate that wealthy people have different values and that wealth should not be used as a metric of their values. That said, I'm not sure that I've convinced anyone (even myself), that some wealthy people have sensible values.

by pfdietz2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

It sometimes is a single person. Consider the failed beer hall demagogue who wrecked a nation, a continent, and nearly a world.

by UncleOxidant2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

To both of your points: the beer hall demagogue wouldn't have gotten to Chancellor if the German elites hadn't decided that he really couldn't do that much damage and we may as well let him be chancellor to quiet down his followers. Even after the putsch, he got a very light sentence because the judge was sympathetic with his right-wing cause. You're both right to some extent. A huge amount of damage was done by one man, but he got to where he did because the German elites thought that he might be useful to their cause.

by vidarh2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Indeed, and that is perhaps the most important lesson of Hitlers rise - dangerous people will always exist, and so it is critical to have systems that are resilient to them, and not allow them to be hollowed out just because the current crop of leaders looks like they can be trusted with more power and less oversight, because who knows what kind of madman will get power next.

by pfdietz2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

All events have multiple causes. But history turned on what he did, and would have been very different otherwise.

by achenet53 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

> what he did

Obviously, calling out for violence and building organizations that commit atrocious acts of violence is a bad thing.

However, it is really hard to do without the help of others.

If you start arguing that your country should invade your neighbors and mass murder various types of people, the people listening have a choice in how they react - do they politely remind you that we're generally happier and richer if we're nice to each other and "treat others like we'd like others to treat us", or shout "JAWOHL MEIN FURHER" and go invade neighbors and mass murdering undesirables?

The problem isn't always the guy shouting hate, it's the crowd listening and implementing hate.

by stackghost2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

>It's not that single person who threatens the world, it's the complete American elite and the whole American society who push for wars and more wars, and the current NPC of the day in the office is just their tool.

I agree that Americans themselves are the root cause. Americans as a society are deeply, pathologically unwell and Trump is entirely their fault. I have no sympathy for any of them.

But only one person is the commander in chief of the US military, and the checks and balances that are supposed to keep him in control are not functioning.