Is the US better prepared for a nuclear blast today than it was 60 years ago?

[OldBroad44]

@dingo97223 -- Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response.

You somewhat misinterpret my reference to Peter Zeihan's videos. What I meant was "The interpretation my post reflects is not original and is limited by the fact that it comes all from one guy. So if you want to hear more with that flavor look him up. And if you think you have better info lets hear it." However, Zeihan has three or four books out, speaks at various major events, consults for many major companies, is invited to give his geopolitical analyses by various groups ranging from farmers in California to government officials of India to US military. I use his videos because that's easier on my eyes than reading his books. I've been following his work for years, and have seen him accurately predict a lot that others got wrong. However, he has weaknesses too, some inherent in the entire geopolitical approach.

I don't necessarily consider that living in a totalitarian country with no free press makes you terribly well-informed about the realities of what that country is doing on the international scene. Shortly after China opened up and began allowing some students and faculty to visit or study in American universities, I had three different Red Chinese housemates. All of them arrived thinking American workers were all oppressed starving slaves who all had aids. They were shocked at how polite people like grocery store workers were. In Communist China clerks were usually rude. And they were amazed that there were no long lines everywhere to buy or do anything. And by how cheap groceries were. Especially meat. (They were all unimpressed by the quality and variety of our vegetables.) And shocked that even ordinary workers had cars and refrigerators. And that Americans could leave USA whenever they wanted. (They were only allowed to leave China after special vetting, and only if they had a hostage staying in China who could be punished or killed if they acted up or failed to return. Husbands and wives were never allowed to leave China simultaneously. Two had husbands in China. One had a baby boy. Her first and to be only child because of the one I hold policy.)

Wired's views sounded like straight Russian party line. Had heard it before. He never lived in Ukraine. When I countered, his response was simply the equivalent of "I know better." Very unuseful. No ref to where his info is coming from. No way to engage with that. So I responded with the sword fighting emoji. That is, I'm unconvinced.

Your post, however, gives lots of details, some/much of which has the ring of reality. Much of it was new to me. Some of it that makes USA look worst I hadn't heard, but it is certainly no worse than plenty the USA is known to have done elsewhere. Do you have any refs you could give me, specifically on the info in the long paragraph starting "The straw that broke the camel's back"? Where did your info come from?

I agree that USA has its problems too these days. One criterion I use to compare countries is to ask whether the citizens are or aren't allowed to leave. Another is whether people are lined up to get in or lined up to leave. A third more personal criteria is the status of women.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Ai generated rumors about Zelenskyy with yachts reached USA political ears. Thus the recent questions about accountability re us funds and likely a factor in lack of USA legislature support.

How pro-Russian 'yacht' propaganda influenced US debate over Ukraine aid

A false rumour spread by a dubious AI-powered website caught the attention of leading politicians.

www.bbc.com

 

[The Heretic]

You claim to have your knowledge from a guy on YouTube who knows that to get more clicks/money he will use scaremongering verbal acrobatics that matches the narrative of the day, like Putin will invade Poland, Europe, etc.

There are more than YT guys out there talking about Russia's/Putin's threats and possible intentions. People like defense ministers and other "experts" with more credibility than some YT guy. I've posted some of these in the Ukraine thread.

I am not saying they are correct, but when we have them all more or less saying they are concerned and taking steps to counter Russia crossing their borders, and we have NATO making the same steps, I think it is time for me to be concerned too. These entities are not making these preps based on YT guys.

You may somewhat know the mindset of some Russians (fed false propaganda every day), but not necessarily that of Putin, the Kremlin and senior military in Russia.

Add to that, Putin's/Russia's actions that tend to indicate Putin is not totally bluffing, and I am more concerned about what Putin/Russia will do than what they say they will do.

So you do you and I will continue to watch what is happening in Europe/etc. with great concern.

 

[wired]

@dingo97223 -- Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response.

You somewhat misinterpret my reference to Peter Zeihan's videos. What I meant was "The interpretation my post reflects is not original and is limited by the fact that it comes all from one guy. So if you want to hear more with that flavor look him up. And if you think you have better info lets hear it." However, Zeihan has three or four books out, speaks at various major events, consults for many major companies, is invited to give his geopolitical analyses by various groups ranging from farmers in California to government officials of India to US military. I use his videos because that's easier on my eyes than reading his books. I've been following his work for years, and have seen him accurately predict a lot that others got wrong. However, he has weaknesses too, some inherent in the entire geopolitical approach.

I don't necessarily consider that living in a totalitarian country with no free press makes you terribly well-informed about the realities of what that country is doing on the international scene. Shortly after China opened up and began allowing some students and faculty to visit or study in American universities, I had three different Red Chinese housemates. All of them arrived thinking American workers were all oppressed starving slaves who all had aids. They were shocked at how polite people like grocery store workers were. In Communist China clerks were usually rude. And they were amazed that there were no long lines everywhere to buy or do anything. And by how cheap groceries were. Especially meat. (They were all unimpressed by the quality and variety of our vegetables.) And shocked that even ordinary workers had cars and refrigerators. And that Americans could leave USA whenever they wanted. (They were only allowed to leave China after special vetting, and only if they had a hostage staying in China who could be punished or killed if they acted up or failed to return. Husbands and wives were never allowed to leave China simultaneously. Two had husbands in China. One had a baby boy. Her first and to be only child because of the one I hold policy.)

Wired's views sounded like straight Russian party line. Had heard it before. He never lived in Ukraine. When I countered, his response was simply the equivalent of "I know better." Very unuseful. No ref to where his info is coming from. No way to engage with that. So I responded with the sword fighting emoji. That is, I'm unconvinced.

Your post, however, gives lots of details, some/much of which has the ring of reality. Much of it was new to me. Some of it that makes USA look worst I hadn't heard, but it is certainly no worse than plenty the USA is known to have done elsewhere. Do you have any refs you could give me, specifically on the info in the long paragraph starting "The straw that broke the camel's back"? Where did your info come from?

I agree that USA has its problems too these days. One criterion I use to compare countries is to ask whether the citizens are or aren't allowed to leave. Another is whether people are lined up to get in or lined up to leave. A third more personal criteria is the status of women.

@dingo97223 -- Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response.

You somewhat misinterpret my reference to Peter Zeihan's videos. What I meant was "The interpretation my post reflects is not original and is limited by the fact that it comes all from one guy. So if you want to hear more with that flavor look him up. And if you think you have better info lets hear it." However, Zeihan has three or four books out, speaks at various major events, consults for many major companies, is invited to give his geopolitical analyses by various groups ranging from farmers in California to government officials of India to US military. I use his videos because that's easier on my eyes than reading his books. I've been following his work for years, and have seen him accurately predict a lot that others got wrong. However, he has weaknesses too, some inherent in the entire geopolitical approach.

I don't necessarily consider that living in a totalitarian country with no free press makes you terribly well-informed about the realities of what that country is doing on the international scene. Shortly after China opened up and began allowing some students and faculty to visit or study in American universities, I had three different Red Chinese housemates. All of them arrived thinking American workers were all oppressed starving slaves who all had aids. They were shocked at how polite people like grocery store workers were. In Communist China clerks were usually rude. And they were amazed that there were no long lines everywhere to buy or do anything. And by how cheap groceries were. Especially meat. (They were all unimpressed by the quality and variety of our vegetables.) And shocked that even ordinary workers had cars and refrigerators. And that Americans could leave USA whenever they wanted. (They were only allowed to leave China after special vetting, and only if they had a hostage staying in China who could be punished or killed if they acted up or failed to return. Husbands and wives were never allowed to leave China simultaneously. Two had husbands in China. One had a baby boy. Her first and to be only child because of the one I hold policy.)

Wired's views sounded like straight Russian party line. Had heard it before. He never lived in Ukraine. When I countered, his response was simply the equivalent of "I know better." Very unuseful. No ref to where his info is coming from. No way to engage with that. So I responded with the sword fighting emoji. That is, I'm unconvinced.

Your post, however, gives lots of details, some/much of which has the ring of reality. Much of it was new to me. Some of it that makes USA look worst I hadn't heard, but it is certainly no worse than plenty the USA is known to have done elsewhere. Do you have any refs you could give me, specifically on the info in the long paragraph starting "The straw that broke the camel's back"? Where did your info come from?

I agree that USA has its problems too these days. One criterion I use to compare countries is to ask whether the citizens are or aren't allowed to leave. Another is whether people are lined up to get in or lined up to leave. A third more personal criteria is the status of women.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response.

When I was 22 I visited a Soviet military base in East Germany. First thing I noticed was they didn't have horns. After that I went to school and did 2 years of Russian studies as a minor , I've sent around a year living in Russia , my wife of 25 years is Full blood right of of Leningrad former communist party Russian. We have extensive family there. I know dozens if not hundreds of Russians and Ukrainian as long term friends . It's a huge part of my life. It's my normal. Carrying on conversations with people who know the culture and history and aspirations of Russians based on what they picked up from cherry picked talking heads is amusing but not terribly useful. Everyone's an expert.

 

[The Heretic]

They're still there and they're not giving up. It's ground to a stalemate at this point and western countries the US in particular have gotten tired of funding Ukraine. The winter is on and Russia will have time to regroup and launch more offensive come spring. Israel has taken the spotlight away. Russian elections are in the spring. Putin will win handily sac there really isn't an opposition party in Russia that numbers more than single digits. Matter of time at this point.

So still not a cakewalk.

A war of attrition that showed just how poorly trained/prepared/led the Russian military is, and just how wrong the predictions were.

 

[OldBroad44]

One day the world will cheer when Russia is a smoldering heap. Time to take out the trash.

I certainly would not cheer if Russia were incinerated, even if it could be done without incinerating large parts of Europe and America, which is unlikely. That's nearly 150 million human beings. Nor do I applaud you for suggesting the genocide of Russians would be a good thing.

 

[wired]

So still not a cakewalk.

A war of attrition that showed just how poorly trained/prepared/led the Russian military is.

Shows more how much the Ukrainians have been propped up with western equipment. Matter of time at this point as the equipment resupply starts to wain

 

[The Heretic]

Shows more how much the Ukrainians have been propped up with western equipment. Matter of time at this point as the equipment resupply starts to wain

Western support most assuredly made a big difference - once it started.

But so did Russian ineptness and over confidence.

Minimal/weak western support started about a week or two after the invasion and ramped up from there. So you can't blame the west for the over-confidence of Russia or those who predicted it would be over in a few days.

It remains to be seen how much longer the USA will continue support and with how much. That is a political problem - one that is at least partially created/continued by those who would like to see Russia overrun Ukraine and other bordering countries.

 

[wired]

Western support most assuredly made a big difference - once it started.

But so did Russian ineptness and over confidence.

Minimal/weak western support started about a week or two after the invasion and ramped up from there. So you can't blame the west for the over-confidence of Russia or those who predicted it would be over in a few days.

It remains to be seen how much longer the USA will continue support and with how much. That is a political problem - one that is at least partially created/continued by those who would like to see Russia overrun Ukraine and other bordering countries.

If Trump gets elected, and at this point it seems fair to assume he will, I think we can safely assume the Ukraine will lose support entirely at least from the US

 

[monkeybutler]

I certainly would not cheer if Russia were incinerated, even if it could be done without incinerating large parts of Europe and America, which is unlikely. That's nearly 150 million human beings. Nor do I applaud you for suggesting the genocide of Russians would be a good thing.

Oh, please, I was not actually suggesting killing 150 million people.

 

[The Heretic]

If Trump gets elected, and at this point it seems fair to assume he will, I think we can safely assume the Ukraine will lose support entirely at least from the US

Be careful with those predictions. They can come back to bite you later.

Also, even if Trump is elected, the POTUS is not who decides whether Ukraine gets further support. It is Congress that makes the laws and decides where $ are spent.

 

[Provincial]

I'll address some of the comments in previous posts.

Russians consider Ukrainians as "brothers." This is straight Soviet propaganda, and as such does much to explain why Putin and his crowd can get Russians to believe this is a fight between Russian and the meddling West. The fact is that Russia considered and considers Ukraine as a subject nation, absorbed by the Russian Empire and transferred to the Soviet Union when they overthrew the monarchy. One only has to look at the Holodomor to see how they really felt. Starve a recalcitrant population to enforce totalitarian rule.

Later, the Soviets, who considered Ukrainians as brothers, transferred Crimea under Soviet Ukrainian administration. Nikita Khrushchev, who was born in Kursk just to the east, transferred Crimea to Ukraine during his rule of the Soviet Union. Khrushchev had spent much of his career in the Communist Party administering Ukraine. Because of this experience, he respected the abilities of Ukrainians (he even took a Ukrainian wife), and felt that Crimea would be better administered by them than the preceding autonomous government. This wasn't just a personal opinion. Observers of the Soviet Union generally described the Ukrainians during the Soviet Era were better organized, more motivated, and more productive than their neighbors.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the central government considered the Republics as satellite states, wholly subservient. Their governments were puppets and were installed with the backing of Moscow. This backing was dependent on graft and corruption. Ukrainians were more prone to objecting to this system than their neighbors, and they pushed against their corrupt leaders.

...seeing Ukraine as a friendly, brotherly country with at least a third of population being Russian Again, this is the propagandized view. While I'm sure it is popular, it is based on the false narrative that the Soviets did no wrong, and everything was fine until the West meddled.

I expect that my observations will be rejected by some who have posted previously, but the fact remains that from an objective viewpoint, the official positions of both sides have major flaws, and this conflict is really about Russia trying to reimpose totalitarian rule over a rebellious subject state.

friendly, brotherly country By this Russia means a puppet state, established through manipulation of elections, to enforce the corrupt power of the current Russian leadership.

buffer state A puppet government of a formerly conquered state that extends the boundary of the Russian Federation well into Europe. If anyone wishes to examine what that entailed for the Warsaw Pact nations, just visit any one of them and talk to the people. You will get an ear full. I recently did that, and they want no part of Russia, no matter what it calls itself.

 

[wired]

I'll address some of the comments in previous posts.

Russians consider Ukrainians as "brothers." This is straight Soviet propaganda, and as such does much to explain why Putin and his crowd can get Russians to believe this is a fight between Russian and the meddling West. The fact is that Russia considered and considers Ukraine as a subject nation, absorbed by the Russian Empire and transferred to the Soviet Union when they overthrew the monarchy. One only has to look at the Holodomor to see how they really felt. Starve a recalcitrant population to enforce totalitarian rule.

Later, the Soviets, who considered Ukrainians as brothers, transferred Crimea under Soviet Ukrainian administration. Nikita Khrushchev, who was born in Kursk just to the east, transferred Crimea to Ukraine during his rule of the Soviet Union. Khrushchev had spent much of his career in the Communist Party administering Ukraine. Because of this experience, he respected the abilities of Ukrainians (he even took a Ukrainian wife), and felt that Crimea would be better administered by them than the preceding autonomous government. This wasn't just a personal opinion. Observers of the Soviet Union generally described the Ukrainians during the Soviet Era were better organized, more motivated, and more productive than their neighbors.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the central government considered the Republics as satellite states, wholly subservient. Their governments were puppets and were installed with the backing of Moscow. This backing was dependent on graft and corruption. Ukrainians were more prone to objecting to this system than their neighbors, and they pushed against their corrupt leaders.

...seeing Ukraine as a friendly, brotherly country with at least a third of population being Russian Again, this is the propagandized view. While I'm sure it is popular, it is based on the false narrative that the Soviets did no wrong, and everything was fine until the West meddled.

I expect that my observations will be rejected by some who have posted previously, but the fact remains that from an objective viewpoint, the official positions of both sides have major flaws, and this conflict is really about Russia trying to reimpose totalitarian rule over a rebellious subject state.

friendly, brotherly country By this Russia means a puppet state, established through manipulation of elections, to enforce the corrupt power of the current Russian leadership.

buffer state A puppet government of a formerly conquered state that extends the boundary of the Russian Federation well into Europe. If anyone wishes to examine what that entailed for the Warsaw Pact nations, just visit any one of them and talk to the people. You will get an ear full. I recently did that, and they want no part of Russia, no matter what it calls itself.

Sister country being the term I've heard most from Russians. The leadership of Russia has zero intention of letting Ukraine go the route of NATO membership. I do think that what we will see as this this unfolds in the next few years is ceding of eastern provinces to Russia and a neutral status i.e no NATO membership ever for Ukraine . I have a real hard time seeing them getting a better deal than that out of this.

 

[Provincial]

The leadership of Japan thought that getting control of Manchuria, China, and the islands of the Pacific Ocean was essential to the continued existence of Japan, and through their control of information, convinced the Japanese people that this was true.

Just because a totalitarian government convinces itself and its population that something is true, makes it true. Knowing that these beliefs are accepted doesn't mean the rest of the world has to go along. The real question is what the rest of the world is willing to do address the issue. It now sees Russia as a threat, and any resolution of the Ukraine conflict will incorporate that revised viewpoint.

 

[wired]

The leadership of Japan thought that getting control of Manchuria, China, and the islands of the Pacific Ocean was essential to the continued existence of Japan, and through their control of information, convinced the Japanese people that this was true.

Just because a totalitarian government convinces itself and its population that something is true, makes it true. Knowing that these beliefs are accepted doesn't mean the rest of the world has to go along. The real question is what the rest of the world is willing to do address the issue. It now sees Russia as a threat, and any resolution of the Ukraine conflict will incorporate that revised viewpoint.

Why would the rest of the world have to go along? The rest of the world can piss up a rope as far as Russia is concerned. Russia has been sanctioned to the point where the rest of the world holds no leverage whatsoever. They can continue to feed Ukraine arms and equipment to Ukraine to be sure but Russia will treat any direct involvement as an attack on Russia itself. Is the juice worth the squeeze?

 

[OldBroad44]

"Sister country" does fit better given that Russians think of their country as the motherland. Germans think of Germany as the fatherland. We Americans don't seem to talk about mother lands or fatherlands. But in This Land is Your Land the one pronoun used is "her". And the flag, a more important symbol of our nation, probably, than are the flags of nations that started as monarchies, is feminine. She's a Grand Old Flag. The Statue of Liberty is female. In my own heart I've always thought of America as my motherland.

Do British think of Britain as a motherland? I looked through the lyrics of God Save the King and Rule Britannia. No pronouns referring to the country. What about Scotland and Ireland? @tac ?

What about other countries?

And does it mean anything whether you think of your country as a motherland or a fatherland?

 

[albin25]

Fatherland? Motherland?

Just so long as it knows what bathroom to use!

 

[wired]

"Sister country" does fit better given that Russians think of their country as the motherland. Germans think of Germany as the fatherland. We Americans don't seem to talk about mother lands or fatherlands. But in This Land is Your Land the one pronoun used is "her". And the flag, a more important symbol of our nation, probably, than are the flags of nations that started as monarchies, is feminine. She's a Grand Old Flag. The Statue of Liberty is female. In my own heart I've always thought of America as my motherland.

Do British think of Britain as a motherland? I looked through the lyrics of God Save the King and Rule Britannia. No pronouns referring to the country. What about Scotland and Ireland? @tac ?

What about other countries?

And does it mean anything whether you think of your country as a motherland or a fatherland?

Having lived in both Germany and Russia I'd say Russia is a very maternalistic country compared to Germany which is very Paternalistic. The Motherland, Mother Russia, Mat Rodina ( Mother Russia ) is the name of the European heartland of Russia. Children and adults alike have fond memories of their childhoods spent at Grandmas Dacha and the Babushka is held in the absolute highest regards. Grandpa hardly ever gets a mention possibly in large part to the fact he drank himself to death 30 years before Grandmas typically kick off. Girls grow up wanting to become their Grandmother. The men nominally run the country but the women rule the home. Its an extremely conservative country which comes as a surprise to those who think that commies are all somehow super liberal.

Germany on the other hand yeah, is completely different in that regard.

Note the people at the bottom of The Motherland Calls in Volgograd ( Stalingrad )

 

[monkeybutler]

Its an extremely conservative country which comes as a surprise to those who think that commies are all somehow super liberal.

Yep. It is hard to escape local frames of reference for many.

Similar assumption as with the Nazis, 'cause they were "national socialists," but really… more like blood and soil, an extreme, evil aberration of social conservatism.

 

[Provincial]

Why would the rest of the world have to go along? The rest of the world can piss up a rope as far as Russia is concerned. Russia has been sanctioned to the point where the rest of the world holds no leverage whatsoever. They can continue to feed Ukraine arms and equipment to Ukraine to be sure but Russia will treat any direct involvement as an attack on Russia itself. Is the juice worth the squeeze?

They care because Putin and his backers have made it clear that their intention is to reestablish the Soviet Empire to its greatest reaches. They claim the Baltics as part of Russia proper, and Poland and the other Warsaw Pact nations as integral parts of their rule.

If we are to take them to their word that Ukraine must always be part of Russia, then we must also take them to their word that they intend to rule the puppet nations they lost in the collapse of the Soviet Union.