I’m not gonna bother posting a Reddit screenshot or a tweet. We’ve all seen enough, and way more than it’s healthy. Just wanna say, people really support shit ideas that will pretty much inevitably end with a nuclear exchange. It’s really depressing to see people foaming at the mouth with racist warhawk takes. That’s all.

  • hero_ball
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 years ago

    A big part of it is that Americans have been propagandized into thinking they can “win” a nuclear war, as if there could be “winners” in that scenario.

  • Kirbywithwhip1987@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    They start foaming at the mouth with racist warhawk takes when someone finally stands up to the west and punches their bloody face. They are doing it because they are losing their puppets and can’t do nothing about it because it’s Russia, if it wasn’t, if it was some Middle Eastern country, it would already been bombed.

  • NvMe24@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 years ago

    years of media brainwashing make people believe that they know better than others and making fun of them for believing “insane” ideas while believing them themselves

      • holdengreen@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’m not afraid of climate change like I am of nuclear apocalypse. Nuclear exchange is more likely than not to kill all human life. Every person or with no real change of repopulation. There isn’t a scenario where climate change manages to do that.

        • Ratette (she/her)@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 years ago

          I fear nuclear apocalypse not because I don’t think humanity could bounce back from it but because nobody should ever have their lives snuffed out on the whims of some warhawk ordering death from above as they melt cities.

          On the flip side if we lose the gulf stream, oceanic currents, stagnation of water and algae blooms, increase hydrogen in the water from it trapped in ice poisoning water, death of sea life from warming seas, erratic weather, loss of arable fertile land (this is the big one) and so on, I don’t see how humanity can come back from that. Sure tribes might survive but society won’t I feel.

          Arable farmland in the UK is already in decline due to erratic weather for example and with society as it is currently floundering, loss of more farmland and refusal to move to more sustainable food production is going to make a lot of people starve in the coming decades I feel.

          I agree climate change isn’t going to kill us overnight, it’s a slow creeping death but I dont think society is capable of adapting to changes quick enough for it to be considered manageable.

          Nuclear war on the other hand, the button press to end a cities worth of lives is a very scary and cruel prospect regardless of its reach but the effected area isn’t global unless people choose it to be in the same way that climate change will unequivocally affect us all.

          For me one is sadly an inevitability at this point unless real change takes place across world governments, the other while plausible requires an active decision to initiate which is why climate change is still at the top of my worry list.

            • mylifeforaiur@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              2 years ago

              The nukes are much, much worse. Nuclear winter could mean the death of every plant and every animal that depends on plants. That means the extinction of all human life, even tribes. Climate change is bad, but nuclear winter is several orders of magnitude worse.

              • teensndants@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                2 years ago

                Honestly I think you both make great points but with one option verging on inevitable at this point and the other playing nuke roulette.

                Like either way they’re both terrible fucking options with a death prize at the end.

                Sure nukes are immediate death but we gotta acknowledge climate change is currently wiping out food and water supply in developing nations.

                CC is essentially decimation by another name, just hasn’t hit cinemas (as much) in the West yet.

                • bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  A lot of people here talking as if one won’t likely lead to another. Climate change creates more scarcity. More scarcity means conventional war is more likely. More conventional war means more likely chance of non-conventional war as stakes increase.

                  As soon as conventional forces get within an arbitrary distance of a nuclear site or threaten to corner leaders, woosh up the missiles go.

              • holdengreen@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 years ago

                It depends on how much land coverage all the nukes will have. Regardless they will be devastating for human civilization.

            • CosmonautCat@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              I’m obviously not an authority on the matter, but from what I’ve read regarding simulations of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, even with only a tiny fraction of the world’s nuclear arsenal involved and the direct conflict limited to those two countries, the effects would be felt worldwide, with global agricultural production being disrupted and hundreds of millions potentially suffering from starvation as a result. While it is true that climate crisis is pretty much unavoidable and therefore more pressing than a hypothetical nuclear conflict, we must keep in mind that the effects of a nuclear exchange aren’t limited to just the initial destruction.

        • Godless_Nematode
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          What did one dinosaur say to the other dinosaur, “don’t worry, it’s only one meteor.”

  • GloriousDoubleK@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yeah… Anymore I just wanna work and provide for my wife and my cats until there is nothing left and then we die.

    I dont even know what goes on in the heads of white liberals and settlers anymore.

    If such and apocalypse can be won; the least I can hope for is for the west to lose. They dont deserve to come out the other end as winners.

  • Mzuark@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I saw a post on the most recent worldnews thread that really caught my eye. It’s about those British guys who were tried and sentenced to death

    “These two guys are married to Ukrainians, they are protecting the country they have chosen to live in. They were, are on active duty. This will be a blatant war crime and Russia should be dealt with accordingly if this goes ahead.”

    “Russia will never be dealt with accordingly because people are afraid of them saying the N word.”

    The N-word of course being “nukes” but leave it to reddit to make a race joke completely unprompted. It caught my eye because do these people seriously not understand what happens if we just start bombing Russia like they clearly want the West to do? Do they think that nukes are suddenly a nonissue because white people are in danger?

  • Ratette (she/her)@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Lurking2learn learning and posting a based take 👏

    It’s so depressing and spooky comrade, I agree. My optimistic side says that for all the warhawking and rhetoric by world leaders we won’t (hopefully) see a nuclear exchange because its fundamentally detrimental to capitalist expansion if they kill land and people (resources to these ghouls) but optimism has always left me disappointed when it comes to angloid geo politics.

    I think a lot more of the privileged world could do with a crash course in quite what a nuclear exchange will mean for them.

    Edit: did this sound condescending? The first line felt condescending. I’m sorry 😞 it wasn’t meant to be 😭

    • mylifeforaiur@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      it’s fundamentally dangerous to capitalist expansion

      The ruling class is dominated by very old, very spoiled people who never faced a consequence their entire lives. I fear that people like trump will believe the 80 iq generals who tell him they can win a nuclear war.

    • Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      You would think. You would really really hope not. To anyone with a functioning brain nuclear war is obviously THE most irrational thing. But goddamn are the managers of US empire fucking stupid.

      • Ratette (she/her)@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        To them because of particular yields weapons having less of a radiological impact than say smaller bombs I bet they consider it a potential escalation or some stupid bs not realising any nuke is a bad nuke. Geriatrics in charge of the apocalypse the lot of em.