Do you think there's a possibility things won't be THAT bad?

bromius · **Joined:** Mon May 26, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 198

Heineken wrote:

More and more, I believe we're headed for nuclear conflagration. That is where history is inevitably leading. For some reason, many POers discount this possibility. A huge oversight IMO.

Probably life will pick up the pieces and evolution will resume, but it's gonna take millions of years for the earth to resemble anything like the way we found it.

Let's put it this way: For the rest of our lives and well beyond, things will continue to get worse. ALL things.

I don't worry about the nuclear scenario. If it happens, its one possibility I have a simple, concrete plan for. The day that news comes down is the day many of my worries cease.

careinke · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:12 am

I think I'm a Doomer AND a Prepper. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)

EnergyUnlimited · **Joined:** Mon May 15, 2006 12:00 am **Posts:** 3766

Heineken wrote:

More and more, I believe we're headed for nuclear conflagration. That is where history is inevitably leading. For some reason, many POers discount this possibility. A huge oversight IMO.

I like to remind that subject from time to time but it is not being followed by others.

It seems to me that part of members hope that PTB would be frightened to set of full blown exchange.

Other part believe that it is not worth to discuss how world after exchange would look like because it would be so hopelessly miserable that there are no merits to discuss it in detail.

I also believe that massive nuclear confrontation is a high probability scenario within coming decade.

I think, in all probabilities there will be many survivors and at current levels of arsenals extinction of humanity would not result.
On the other hand extinction of technological civilization certainly would result.

So I have some sodium iodide, cysteine and glutathione just in case.
They cost next to nothing and properly stored are indefinitely stable for all practical purposes.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:51 am

Heineken wrote:

More and more, I believe we're headed for nuclear conflagration.

Why do believe that ?

Why would we nuke the Russians, only to be nuked ourselves? Why would we nuke anybody, knowing full well that eventually, one way or another, we would be nuked in retaliation?

And what would be gained by using our nuclear weapons, anyway? What would be the point? What benefit would we see from it?

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction works. It works perfectly. It always has, and it always will.

idiom · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:18 am

Zardoz wrote:

Heineken wrote:

More and more, I believe we're headed for nuclear conflagration.

Why do believe that ?

Why would we nuke the Russians, only to be nuked ourselves? Why would we nuke anybody, knowing full well that eventually, one way or another, we would be nuked in retaliation?

And what would be gained by using our nuclear weapons, anyway? What would be the point? What benefit would we see from it?

Why would you bankrupt your entire nation?

wisconsin_cur · **Joined:** Thu May 10, 2007 12:00 am **Posts:** 4616

careinke wrote:

I think I'm a Doomer AND a Prepper. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)

+1

canuckinczech · **Joined:** Fri May 02, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 72

RdSnt wrote:

I regard that current attempts to cover over the financial disaster we are in as the WCOTC "Willy Coyote Over The Cliff" moment. You know that moment when he is suspended in mid-air, just before he looks down and then plummets.

Doesn't the roadrunner always getaway happy and unhurt....

MEEP,MEEP!

canuckinczech · **Joined:** Fri May 02, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 72

A good friend of mine is a jack-of-all trades and as he says...,"What should I be worried about, this is my time, in the world that lays before us...the survivalists will be king!".

Heineken · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:30 am

Pops wrote:

The funny thing about the replies to this thread and so many others here is it is all about the Other.

Whether the Other is the economy, the banker, the government, the Terrorist, the neighbor with a different opinion or just Things.

Things are in your hands, people.

Either take your life in your hands, do something with it and then tell us about it, or sit there with your hand out and silently wait.

Sorry, a little harsh....

"I have the power to stop the nukes from flying. I shall sweep my arms about, so, and stop them dead in flight. I am EMPOWERED, gawddangit."

Thanks Pops. I feel empowered now.

Heineken · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:34 am

Zardoz wrote:

Heineken wrote:

More and more, I believe we're headed for nuclear conflagration.

Why do believe that ?

Why would we nuke the Russians, only to be nuked ourselves? Why would we nuke anybody, knowing full well that eventually, one way or another, we would be nuked in retaliation?

And what would be gained by using our nuclear weapons, anyway? What would be the point? What benefit would we see from it?

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction works. It works perfectly. It always has, and it always will.

You are asking rational questions that, alas, do not reliably apply to an irrational species, Zardoz.

More and more nations (and groups, even) will have access to these weapons. Political and environmental conditions will trend toward greater and greater destabilization (e.g., resource wars). Now, connect the dots.

mos6507 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:49 am

Zardoz wrote:

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction works. It works perfectly. It always has, and it always will.

The angry debates over whether it would be "fair" to just let all countries get nukes since some already have them center on this debate of whether MAD will truly work everywhere. IMHO, MAD will not work if the radicals take over Pakistan or Iran gets nukes. The reason these debates get so heated is the stakes are so high. It's not a simple matter of saying "why can we have nukes and they can't"? If MAD _won't_ work in all cases, but the prevailing opinion is that it will, so we allow the UN to be a paper tiger, then we're engaging in a really dangerous experiment with grave consequences. So obviously people feel that perhaps their own life depends on the prevailing public opinion on the universality of MAD.

hope_full · **Joined:** Tue May 27, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 334

Thanks for the many replies and interesting posts. I suppose I really am hopeful that things won't be that bad.

Our local economy (thanks largely to the massive amount of military here in Norfolk) seems to be doing really well. I read the national news and it sounds like the sky is falling and then I look around at all the new construction and even new businesses opening here (locally) and it's quite an oxymoron.

Thanks again for the replies.

Fredrik · **Posted:** Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:15 am

pedalling_faster wrote:

if people had trouble getting along when resources were plenty, what reason is there to think they will get along when resources are scarce ?

Maybe because it's the only way to survive? Survival instinct is a mighty power once staying alive becomes the primary concern - it might even force irrational people to act rationally for a change. It has been easy to neglect group solidarity, cooperation and cultural cohesion in a time of unforeseen affluence and cheap energy, but I expect that to change soon.

But this only applies to groups and communities that are able to form economically and culturally viable "units" - towns, regions/states, nations at most. Conflicts will probably continue and worsen between these units.

Heineken wrote:

More and more nations (and groups, even) will have access to these weapons. Political and environmental conditions will trend toward greater and greater destabilization (e.g., resource wars). Now, connect the dots.

Connecting the dots... But: even if India and Pakistan or Iran and Israel had nuclear exchange, why would the US nuke Russia/China or vice versa, provoking the MAD scenario? Some nuclear powers might blackmail smaller countries that have some energy resources left, but they'll leave the other big players alone unless they're ruled by truly suicidal people who want a real armageddon. I expect nuclear war casualties to be a relatively small minority in the next decades' body count.

Heineken · **Posted:** Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:24 am

hope_full wrote:

Thanks for the many replies and interesting posts. I suppose I really am hopeful that things won't be that bad.

Our local economy (thanks largely to the massive amount of military here in Norfolk) seems to be doing really well. I read the national news and it sounds like the sky is falling and then I look around at all the new construction and even new businesses opening here (locally) and it's quite an oxymoron.

Thanks again for the replies.

To accomplish any of his goals with a modicum of fiscal sanity, Obama will have to cut the military budget to the bone (something that should be done anyway). What you are seeing in Norfolk is momentum from the Bush past. That momentum is doomed to grind to a halt, Hopeful.

efarmer · **Joined:** Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:00 am **Posts:** 805

Whenever I get a little doomy, I just think about 2010
when Mr. Bill finally loans me the money to order
a shiny red Chinese Buick Melamine convertible
from WalMart.

I dream about the sultry female voice from the
computer reminding me when I park:

"Efalmel, you reft youl rights on!"

Do you think there's a possibility things won't be THAT bad?

Who is online