this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
118 points (96.8% liked)

news

23527 readers
782 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lorty@lemmygrad.ml 45 points 1 month ago

Let's be honest: they already are. They are only limiting themselves to fighting with ukrainian soldiers.

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 43 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

We're all going to die because of Banderite Nazis, huh?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

we're all gonna die to defend western values

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 40 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I guess we get to find out if the libs really want to start WW3.

[–] CommCat@hexbear.net 26 points 1 month ago (13 children)

seriously, Kamala is more dangerous to starting WWIII than Trump.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 40 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

This whole "we will make appropriate decisions based on this" open ended answer Putin always gives makes libs consistently think he will always back off when they press him. So far they've been right but eventually they won't be.

Serious question though where do I run to if nuclear war does break out. Western world will be seriously fucked over, my thinking is steal a boat and go somewhere but I dunno. South america? Where's going to have the most food security in the event of a serious war?

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My fallback plan is to become high warlord of the wasteland, preferably with some sort of armored train. I just need to work on my cult of warboys

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Yeah I don't want to rely on that, the food situation will be so bad that there will be an impossible amount of death to deal with. Tens of millions will starve.

I'm just not equipped to deal with that, I'm not sticking around for it. I'm getting out before calorie deficit makes it harder and harder to get out. The longer anyone delays the decision to get away the less likely they'll be able to, in the aftermath of bombs being dropped nobody is going to care that I stole a small yacht and they're incredibly easy to just take.

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I don't think I would last a long boat trip in a resource collapse situation, I can't stand fish, I don't even like meat. I don't even know where I would get meds from, long term, especially in remote locations.

I don't look forward to what the nuclear war will be like, would be cool if our politicians stopped chasing after it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hexboare@hexbear.net 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

South America and Australia/NZ

Regions in green mean food consumption can support the current physical activity in that country; regions in yellow are calorie intake that would cause people to lose weight, and only sedentary physical activity would be supported; and regions in red indicate that daily calorie intake would be less than needed to maintain a basal metabolic rate (also called resting energy expenditure) and thus would lead to death after an individual exhausted their body energy reserves in stored fat and expendable muscle.

Tg refers to the teragrams of soot injected into the atmosphere modelled

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Australia and NZ are going to be involved in the war. Australia will 100%. I find it hard to believe NZ won't get hit too.

South America seems best bet. Unlikely to get nuked. If NZ doesn't get nuked I'd probably pick that just because I'd be able to adapt there quicker.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I recall reading how the US has nuked primed to hit the Global South in case of a nuclear war just so that they don't make it.

[–] weeen@hexbear.net 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Yeah wasn't it something like, they want the US to be the center of rebuilt civilisation, so they'd nuke everything else, including their allies..

[–] InappropriateEmote@hexbear.net 13 points 1 month ago (4 children)

It wouldn't surprise me if this were in fact true, but if you or @yogthos@lemmy.ml can point me to where you saw this, I would really appreciate being able to read about it. Regardless of what heinous crimes against humanity and all life on earth that the US would actually perpetrate in a large scale nuclear war scenario, I was under the impression that their nuclear posture and targeting strategies are "highly classified" and even though they don't have any NFU policy, they still at least pretend it's about deterrence.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 37 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Don't worry, the cast of the Thick Of It reboot are on it:

[–] Wertheimer@hexbear.net 23 points 1 month ago

Climbing the mountain of conflict

[–] Tomboymoder@hexbear.net 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It would be kind of crazy and sad if the world somehow avoided WW3 and nukes flying in the cold war,
....but it all came to fruition with two capitalist countries beefing it out. aubrey-pain

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 23 points 1 month ago

if anything i feel like thats way more likely, the socialists actually want good things to happen

[–] StalinStan@hexbear.net 33 points 1 month ago (3 children)

On the one hand it would be hilarious to see america get absolutely washed in a war. On thr other hand it wouldn't be fair to all the people this would kill.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Indeed, also seems like a direct confrontation between US and Russia would almost certainly go nuclear.

[–] StalinStan@hexbear.net 32 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I feel like mad still applies but this time we don't have the trust worthy ussr. Like, they multiple times didn't shoot when it woudl ahve been justified. Modern Russia would absolutely would press the button

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah, the situation is a lot more volatile today. I watched this interview with a prof at MIT researching nuclear proliferation, and what he says is absolutely harrowing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH7LT1bIdpY

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They are already at war, Russia just don't atack them and they don UA flag before attacking Russia.

[–] LigOleTiberal@hexbear.net 25 points 1 month ago

can you imagine how awesome it would be if russia starting poisoning the CEOs of the companies that make the weapons of war that get given to ukraine?

would be glorious. please, russia, start offing the CEOs of lockheed martin and raytheon etc.

[–] LigOleTiberal@hexbear.net 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

just do a little nuking in europe, as a treat. i'm bored.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Wertheimer@hexbear.net 23 points 1 month ago

We'll meet again. Don't know where. Don't know when. But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.

[–] FortifiedAttack@hexbear.net 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Join the "Nothing Ever Happens" faction, you'll sleep easier at night if you do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 18 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Well, kids - have a taste of what it was like to be a child of the Cold War. A few months ago I watched "The Day After (1983)". Here's the sequence of the bombs going off - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyy9n8r16hs&t=3454s

A comment

I think this movie needs to be re-aired by every major network * NOW * so America can be reminded. 2 generations later - people forget.

Here's some stuff about Reagan and the movie.

The Day After

US President Ronald Reagan watched the film more than a month before its screening on Columbus Day, October 10, 1983. He wrote in his diary that the film was "very effective and left me greatly depressed" and that it changed his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war". The film was also screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A government advisor who attended the screening, a friend of Meyer, told him: "If you wanted to draw blood, you did it. Those guys sat there like they were turned to stone."

In 1987, Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which resulted in the banning and reducing of their nuclear arsenal. In Reagan's memoirs, he drew a direct line from the film to the signing. Reagan supposedly later sent Meyer a telegram after the summit: "Don't think your movie didn't have any part of this, because it did."

During an interview in 2010, Meyer said that the telegram was a myth and that the sentiment stemmed from a friend's letter to Meyer. He suggested the story had origins in editing notes received from the White House during the production, which "may have been a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me, him being an old Hollywood guy." There is also an apocryphal story which claims that, after seeing the film, Ronald Reagan said: "That will not happen on my watch."

[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Honestly I don't trust today's libs and reactionaries to be moved by films warning about a nuclear holocaust. A lot of them see media like this and think "Wow that's so cool! I would get to kill my neighbors and minorities to become a warlord!"

Fascism is a nihilistic death cult. I expect them to act accordingly. They won't hesitate to push the button because they will isolate themselves from violence. They'll make sure they have a nice, cushy bunker while the rest of us perish in nuclear hellfire. American exceptionalism isn't helping this, either. A lot of them really think America would win a nuclear exchange with very little damage done to the US.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In Reagan's memoirs, he drew a direct line from the film to the signing.

I'm pretty sure those were ghostwritten because Reagan would've been way too far down the path of dementia by then, no?

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago

Reagan got a hearing aid in his first term. At that time - I thought nothing of it. I was young (ah) and he was old as fuck. But during his second term I must have watched or read something to make me wonder if it was actually an earpiece. Maybe I saw an SNL skit with that theme or I read some jokey article that mentioned the idea that he was being fed information because he was already losing his marbles. In any case - after he got his "hearing aid" I must have made an effort to watch one or two of his press conferences. That was a super-pain in the ass back in the day. No Youtube. No google. Even the Internet wasn't a thing yet.

Even though he was skilled at using humor for misdirection and reporters can be dumber than rocks - I was surprised that at times he really did look a bit lost. I had to wonder if the "hearing aid" was actually an earpiece and they were coaching him through the rough patches.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] coeliacmccarthy@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago

neat, hope i die

load more comments
view more: next ›