Preparations for Week 5: On the Threat of Global Nuclear War. And no...

I don’t know I’m a somewhat cautious optimist when it comes to this. The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction is the very reason we aren’t always on the verge of panic. Saying something like, PANIC NOW DOOM IS COMING!!!, is just a means to incite a populous. You could scream “fire” in a movie theater. It might be believed because in a movie theater the tools for a fire are available, however, people don’t scream fire in a movie theater because one there isn’t one and two I believe it’s actually illegal. Maybe it isn’t the best analogy but I think you get the point. The tools for nuclear destruction are there but we have to believe that everyone has a modicum, and iota, of common sense. it’s what keeps this world running. I guess it’s also what keeps cultist in business. 

Although the idea of nuclear war is concerning for certain, anyone with at least some common sense should be held back by the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction. If nuclear weapons were to be used for victory, nobody would win, as it'd start such a large-scale war that in the end it'd be a loss for all sides. As long as people understand that, nuclear war is not all that likely, because nobody can ever win.

Die for Japan

Common sense would indeed save us... Except when's the last time anyone in that position of power had common sense- or for that matter any sense beyond ultranationalism?

I think something that’s commonly mistaken is that there’s this one guy who just presses a button somewhere and boom. Lets start off with the biggest misconception, the button. There isn’t a button anywhere. It just doesn’t exist there is a guy who follows the president with nuclear launch codes. But the president can’t just suddenly decide to blow the world to bits. That’s one the other misconception is that people blindly follow others. The common issue with Marxist thinkers sometimes (not specifically you) is that they tend to believe the masses act as a mob. The peoples will… However, they aren’t this mob driven foolish crowd. People have some smarts. When we think about WWIII we usually think about the president alone blowing the world up. He has to interact with a whole bureaucracy  before he can do any of that, though. Also we’re assuming that the operators of these nuclear stations won’t decide to stop things themselves. People commonly misunderstand the amount of protection we actually have right now. Even “ultranationalist“ colloquially called patriots surprisingly have there own thoughts. We must remember we’re all independent and its us in our independence that have the true power here. A nuke could happen but I sure as hell no I wont be there to see it. I have nearly complete confidence that I, and all of us, will be long dead before the human race… Ends. 

That's true to an extent, but I also think that most world leaders have at least some level of common sense — at least to the point that they wouldn't begin a nuclear war when it's almost certain to cause a situation where everyone loses. 

If world leaders had common sense, the war in Ukraine would have ended months ago, hell, it never would have started. Instead it is recklessly escalated on a regular basis with no signs of stopping.

And as for the bureaucracy, the president has no need to worry about it: partisanship overrides any logic in their world, and for the parties of the superpowers, they are bent over to ensuring the glory of their party, and therefore their state, their imperialist tendencies to support national interests, interests that innately stem from capitalism's unending lust for expansion.

We have to be careful in viewing people as solely a product of their environment or solely in line with one idea. People have morals. We saw it on January 6th many people who supported Trump behind closed doors expressed discontent with his possible insurrectionist actions (although to my knowledge he hasn't been charged with anything). It shows that party leaders, when in crisis, can still come together on certain issues. There are about 5 politicians who want desperately for you to be divided into these little subsections. They know that 1. they'll achieve more power this way. 2. They have a stronger base. It's a smart strategy. However, when the crisis hits I don't think people will be all to concerned about party lines. I doubt anyone will go up and say well, "who's going to be the one to press the button (like I said it doesn't exist but for the purpose of this hang with me)". No, I strongly believe people will jump into action. When 9/11 happened, I doubt rescuers were going up to certain people and saving them based on party affiliation. Just remember that they want you to be divided and you can't give them the satisfaction of perpetuating that lie. America is way stronger than people would have you think. We aren't suckers. We aren't losers. We are a country that has gone through to much to fail because of some bomb somewhere. I think that there is a baseline of humanity in people that will stop an event like this from happening. Have some faith, stay cautiously optimistic, and nothing bad will actually happen. 

Opportunism will get us nowhere, standing around letting the saber-rattling continue is a death sentence. The events of January 6th came far closer to succeeding than most believe. Multiple parts of the state were in support of the coup, and even assisted in it.

Of course parties come together, especially in times of crises when the people are aroused and angered. In France right now, the country is, and I mean this, literally at the brink of ANOTHER revolution. The parties and unions are desperately working to stop it, with the help of Macron and his N@zi-like militant suppression of the protests, though are fully aware that the people's anger may spiral out of their control. Parties cooperate to protect their power from the people.

When crises hit, the people will be in shock, but then must find people to blame. In the aftermath of 9/11's patriotism, what spurred: islamophobia, and America's international crimes that manifested in wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Who is really to blame? The ones facilitating these actions: The ones behind civil terrorism, and the ones who used state terrorism and militant terrorism to respond.

True but in the event of a nuclear bombing its good to know that the government is able to spring into action. If a nuke was ever sent there wouldn't be an aftermath to deal with so that wouldn't be a concern, whatsoever. We are debating purely on nukes. Nukes are an abrupt end. The whole idea that partisanship would be a factor is a myth. Like you said it was the aftermath when people started playing on 9/11 as a political power key. Nukes specifically will very likely unite the government. Like I said we aren't robots. If there's one thing life's taught me its that you can rely on someone to make a decision for their own gain.