• lorty@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    3 months ago

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

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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 (she/her)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 months ago

      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 [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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 (she/her)@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I’d be taking 2-3 weeks worth of food too so the supplies situation would be ok. Need to get to the destination in that amount of time though.

            Can probably stretch out supplies to double that if absolutely necessary. 7500km at 10 knots is a 17day trip. Biggest problem here seems to be fuel though, 1500km on a full tank seems to be max range, that only gets me to Portugal. Assuming I can refill there (big assumption) I could then get to Tenerife, then St Louis, then Cabo Verde, then the hardest part of the way to Brazil.

            Probably try to figure out a way to get considerably more fuel on-board at the earliest point possible in order to skip any of these stops and the danger of not being able to refuel.

            Boat seems best option here, I don’t think any airports will still exist after nukes drop. My main concern is whether or not the ports with the boats will still exist or whether they all get hit because they’re ports which seems like a valid target to me. This entire plan is fucked if that happens. There will be no escape. I’d have to cross the channel and cross a nuclear irradiated Europe, I don’t think that’s going to work. I doubt I’d even be able to cross the channel due to radiation.

            If it does work, can sell the boat at the other end of the journey which should help with surviving there long enough to find work.

            • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Keep in mind there are nuclear weapons now that intentionally make tsunami, so even boats (in port) might get wasted, not to be negative- this is making me want to consider hijacking some big ship like a tanker or bulk carrier.

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I haven’t really thought about big ships. Not sure where to even start with that. Surely the ports with the big tanker ships would absolutely be targeted?

                Dealing with crew would be a nightmare too without guns and I don’t know anything about managing a large ship? You’d need the crew. Supplies would be a nightmare. Also the crew of surviving tanker ships are probably going to be pretty well aware of the usefulness of their ships.

    • Hexboare [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

  • Tomboymoder [she/her, pup/pup's]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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

  • StalinStan [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • LigOleTiberal [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months 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.

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 months ago

    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 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      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 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months 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.