what will do if the world ended?

pretend that some countries i will not name engage in a nuclear battle, as a result, half of the world is destroyed, and the other half in rendered inhabitable. let's assume you are lucky enough to have survived through that, now you are somewhere underground, what will you do? How will you manage food and water? What are the things you would want to get your hands on, relics of the previous world? some piece of technology? are willing to live through this at all?

>let's assume you are lucky enough to have survived through that That's not being lucky and most likely kill myself as soon as possible. The real question is, how would I kill myself painlessly..

The world is already becoming slowly uninhabitable. The unregulated dumping of gasses into the air has led to a runaway greenhouse effect and now we're slowly on the way to ending up like Venus, a literal hell planet. If you mean nuclear war, the only chance is A. find somewhere remote B. remain underground. You'd need to secure an unpolluted source of water and food, which isn't easy. You can grow some basic food items, although you'll always be malnourished. You'd have to watch the weather to avoid clouds of radioactive fallout. Everything would have to be salvaged, contamination would be an issue. Its highly unlikely you'd be able to find an area that isn't effected and you will slowly die anyway. If a nuclear war happens, you better pray you die in the fireball because what happens next is far far worse. Thank you Robert Emoheimer and Harry "Billions Must Die" Truman

Die, I don't know. And if through some pure chance I don't, I will simply assume god gave me a mission and I will focus on animalistic survival, becoming dangerous and to reproduce wherever I go or perish trying. The living will envy the dead. Such is the nature of evolutionary bottle necks.

>>42671 >you'll always be malnourished yeah and watch out for the cannibals

You'd want some place to go in the southern hemisphere. Most of the damage would be done in the northern hemisphere where most of the land masses and people are. Weather patterns will tend to keep most of the fallout there, too. So you find a nice spot in New Zealand, Australia, or the southern tips of South America or Africa. You build a nice underground bunker or mountain bunker. You need ventilation, fans, air filters. You need water, so you find a place where the ground water is at the right level to provide water but not flood your bunker. You need water testing and purification. You need a place to get rid of sewage and wastewater where it won't come back and foul your bunker. You need water storage tanks and pumps. You need food, so you'd want to store as much non-perisable food as possible. To grow food hydroponically, you'd need lights and fertilizer. Top soil might be radioactive. A few tanks for fertilizer, I guess. You need temperature control, some kind of electric hvac. You'd need a good supply of medical supplies for illnesses/accidents. You'd need a radiation suit so you could go out and test radiation levels once in a while. To power all of this gear, you'd need nuclear power that doesn't use your air or create fumes. You could also have solar panels outside on the surface. You'd want communications gear and an antenna outside. You'd want tools for repairs. Think of it as an underground nuclear submarine or underground international space station but without muc if any resupply for a long time. You'd need informative books that explain how to do everything you need to do. You'd need some kind of entertainment to keep you from going crazy. You'd need a firearm and ammunition for possible defense. If you're lucky and not much radiation is in the area, you could even hunt, fish, and forage, so a wooded area near a body of water would be nice in that case. If you're thinking long term, you'd want a library of basic human knowledge for restarting civilization when possible. And you would need a Lain poster.

>>42682 I feel like I don't even care about a nuclear holocaust any more. All I hope now is that rabid kiwis will make it a sport to hunt down technocrats and world leaders who though they could just fuarrrk off and hide away from the consequences that their decisions have caused. >>42673 When SHTF, stay away where blacks are.

>>42683 >When SHTF, stay away where blacks are. Yeah also stay away from oven dodgers in the suburbs

>nuclear battle >half the world is destroyed buddy mine I think you're overestimating how bad this would be. Disarmament has been going on for decades, number of nukes, size of nukes, way down. Back in the 80s we were talking about not even killing half of the USSR. Not even half of the prime target! And now there are fewer weapons, far fewer, and it has been so much longer since a test. Tests of delivery systems are still done, with often promising results, but the nukes themselves, there must be some doubt. If such a war happens the great bulk of people will live. Read hiroshima accounts, so many survivors even close to the burst, and not too far away everything fine. Modern weapons are many times larger, yes, but most of that blast goes into the air etc, and it dissipates fast. Nuclear war could be devastating but no where near as bad as you seem to think. Doesn't take nuclear war to collapse a society though many governments are doing it fine by themselves.

>>42669 Is "On the Beach" accurate?

>>42685 This trend is likely to reverse, the US and Russia have both suspended New Start and are actively building new warheads again. This country needs something bad enough to happen to get people against their government like they were in Vietnam. We're all so bogged down in the internet and culture war nonsense when we should be dealing with the corruption in our entire government. It's not in any Americans interest to build more missiles to point at Russia.

The cockroaches are an ancient group, with their ancestors, known as "roachoids", originating during the Carboniferous period, some 320 million years ago. Those early ancestors, however, lacked the internal ovipositors of modern roaches. Cockroaches are somewhat generalized insects lacking special adaptations (such as the sucking mouthparts of aphids and other true bugs); they have chewing mouthparts and are probably among the most primitive of living Neopteran insects. They are common and hardy insects capable of tolerating a wide range of climates, from Arctic cold to tropical heat. Tropical cockroaches are often much larger than temperate species. Modern cockroaches are not considered to be a monophyletic group, as it has been found based on genetics that termites are deeply nested within the group, with some groups of cockroaches more closely related to termites than they are to other cockroaches, thus rendering Blattaria paraphyletic. Both cockroaches and termites are included into Blattodea. Some species, such as the gregarious German cockroach, have an elaborate social structure involving common shelter, social dependence, information transfer and kin recognition. Cockroaches have appeared in human culture since classical antiquity. They are popularly depicted as large, dirty pests, although the majority of species are small and inoffensive and live in a wide range of habitats around the world.

A nuclear war is the only thing that can save us from global warming. It would eliminate the technological machine that creates the greenhouse gases, and reduce the population enough that it won't return for a long time. Yes, nuclear war would be horrible. But the alternative is even worse.

>>42669 What if I told you it has happened to some people? The fallout only stay active for a few weeks and mostly kill those who survived the blast but whose body got dehydrated by the heat wave. They had to drink water and the only thing left was the contaminated water on the ground. Bad way to go. The towns were rebuilt fast. Fictions like being forced to live in the metro system of Moscaw is just that: fiction. You have to see them as zombies apocalypses. If it happen, the population got divided by 2, industrial production halt and the economy is in the soykafter, prepare yourself to 20 years of working hard for a low pay to rebuild the country but in the immediate, the main thing to be afraid of is a traditional invasion. >How will you manage food and water? We only produce food once a year and you will become familiar with the notion of liberty garden. In Europe a lot of people just grow food in their garden. Water will still be there, we had clean water for not even a century so you know you can drink it. This fear of living in a nuked country seem American to me. Here in west Europe, our grandparents grew up in ruins. We know what war do. In Eastern Europe, they already live in a post apocalyptic world. We had the Yugo war to remind us of the consequences of war. Yes it's bad but most of us will survive. I would be more afraid of an USSR style collapse and the following decade of omnipresent criminality or a Byzantium style collapse where nobody wanted to stand for the Byzantium anymore and it just felt. The army can't recruit anymore and DEI forced them to get non existent physical requirements and give promotions based on identity. This can't end well with China around. >>42671 The days will still be 24 hours long so no venus. Worse (best?) case scenario: humans go extincts. >>42682 I disagree. If Russia and the US start exchanging nukes, they will both nuke China as well to prevent it from becoming the next superpower. India and Pakistan will probably throw nukes too so Russia, the US and China will preventively nuke them, Turkey want to invade Russia so Russia will nuke them to not be invaded in their moment of need and before France and the UK are gone, every power that have a chance to take advantage of the temporary weakness of the superpowers will be nuked too. We can't allow Brasil to invade the US now, can we? >>42684 With blacks, you can't notice if SHTF. Just kidding, during Katrina the blacks have turned the town in a war zone and that was just one flooding. >>42694 If the nuclear war happen, fossils will become the only source of power for most of the survivors.

>If trapped underground Larp metro >If trapped in the zone Larp STALKER >If I can go anywhere probably end up like that guy who draws maps from girl's last tour. Maybe I'll get a cute waifu or something.

>>42695 >If the nuclear war happen, fossils will become the only source of power for most of the survivors True, but the scale of use would be orders of magnitude less with no huge industrial complex to fuel and a lot less people to keep warm. In fact, if there was a much smaller population of humans, say constantly kept at >=1 billion worldwide, we could have all the same industry and technology as today and the biosphere could keep up with it. The real root problem is overpopulation, not technology.

>>42704 >fossils will become only fuel personally if I wanted to cripple a country I'd pop a couple nukes for its fuel supplies even before hitting certain major cities. Fuel is incredibly important. If the war goes bad what few fossils are to be had will be for the military and the rest of us will have wood to burn should we want fire.

>>42705 Of course they would, but it's easy to repair the pumps than to rebuild Hoover Dam or to manufacture entire fields of solar panels when China is at war with you or to rebuild nuclear plants on the radioactive craters. It's also why thirdies use fossils so much: it's simple and easy.

>>42706 easier to nuke rail yards, ports, pipelines, refineries and the hoover dam than it is to nuke highly distributed oil wells though. At least oil wells burn, solar farms just kinda sit there, probably the easiest to fix (granted reduced capacity) from a partly destroyed state out of any of these. Of course tanks and jets don't run on electricity now do they so we need something juicier and any competent government will move mountains to keep the thirsty jets and tanks sated. Thirdies use fossils because everyone uses fossils and its easiest to follow the (gnu+)hurd. If everyone used nukes and nobody used fossils they'd probably import some egg heads to run a nuke for them while living like princes, and the thirdies would all be driving battery scooters.

>>42704 This is ignoring the thing that actually matters here for population: fertility rate. Animal populations have the potential to grow exponentially, so on a medium timescale even very large reductions are irrelevant compared to things that put a soft or hard limit on that population. Right now we have an effective limit on human population growth that is based on stability of social organization and psychological factors that limit fertility rate. We are set to cap out at around 10 billion, and potentially could reduce that number with minor adjustments if there was a political will to do so. The practical problem with controlling global human population with a one-time mass death event is that these factors are destroyed by such events. War, natural disaster, political destabilization, general societal entropy, countries that get hit hard with this stuff experience dramatic increases in number of children per woman that stay high for a very long time. An instant 90% reduction might seem good but in a few decades the population will expand right back to what it was, by the same low tech destructive means, and then keep going. And those people will be descendants of the ones that were selected for by that event, so the typical human personality will trend even more towards low empathy short sighted opportunists, as if we didn't already have too much of that. In the end the problem would be worse.

>>42669 Honestly I think nuclear war is very unlikely to cause "the end of the world". It would cause a breakdown of the current social order and probably a lengthy dark age for several civilizations. Hardly the end of the world. >>42671 >and now we're slowly on the way to ending up like Venus, a literal hell planet. categorically false. There is literally no evidence that a runaway greenhouse effect could happen on Earth unless it got hot enough that the oceans started boiling away. Global warming is bad enough, no need to fearmonger with this apocalyptic bullshit. Again, decline of civilizations, lots of death and destruction, etc, but we'll continue on doing our thing for a long time yet. The really bad thing about both of them long-term is the ecological damage. The world is already a fundamentally worse place to live in than it was just a few decades ago, and it's only getting worse. Mourn that, not the entire idea of civilization, because it'll always bounce back. WRT actual response to all-out nuclear war, first thing to do is to get several miles away from the nearest blast zone and group up with whoever around is being the least hysterical and also has weapons. Fallout will be a problem for a few weeks or months but growing things in greenhouses with carefully controlled soil intake should be possible. I really don't foresee the nuclear effects being anywhere near the biggest obstacle for survival, unless you're unlucky enough to be stuck near a blast zone (such as someone like yours truly); the big problem will be the very sudden lack of food, electricity, and other supplies as many key industrial areas are destroyed, most supply chains are disrupted, and farms become unproductive for at least a few months, everyone losing their minds because they think it's the apocalypse and God is coming to rapture them, and the conventional and electronic warfare that would surely be happening at the same time. >>42685 >Tests of delivery systems are still done, with often promising results, but the nukes themselves, there must be some doubt. They do tests with computer simulations now; the sims they run are fabulously detailed and verified with small ICF experiments, so I think they're probably pretty confident that they work. The warheads are also rebuilt every few years with fresh material, so it's not like the uranium is sitting in there going bad or anything. Otherwise, yes, another problem might be biological warfare, although whether anyone would be nuts enough to do that is up for debate. Compared to dropping a nuke, dropping an anthrax bomb is hard to justify. >>42695 Overall correct. >I would be more afraid of an USSR style collapse and the following decade of omnipresent criminality or a Byzantium style collapse where nobody wanted to stand for the Byzantium anymore and it just felt. Byzantium was a really long time coming. People like Justinian and Basil were exceptions, and they were fighting groups that were religiously motivated and better organized. >>42708 eh, I don't think so. Being a short sighted opportunist tends to get you and your kin rolled by people that are better organized (see previous paragraph)

>>42709 >They do tests with computer simulations now you have more faith in physics simulations that pretty much everyone I've ever talked to employed in the field. Simulations can be good, its really nice to have tests.

>>42709 >although whether anyone would be nuts enough to do that is up for debate. Compared to dropping a nuke, dropping an anthrax bomb is hard to justify. Samson option. A country will not fall to an invasion without using it's entire arsenal first. Israel seriously considered nuking all the middle east and even Europe for not supporting them hard enough when they were about to loose and you can bet every other country would do the same. India invade Pakistan, you can be sure the Pakistani nukes aren't going to stay in storage. Why is everyone so afraid of the fallout? Some people in India live with a yearly equivalent dose of 7mSV from natural sources only. They don't have more problem than the average population. Some old people went back to their houses in the exclusion zone and are fine. Hiroshima and Nagazaki were rebuilt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaSGHkVvGPs You can be afraid of dirty bombs or strangelove type doomsday machines but not of the fallout of a nuclear war. I would be more concerned over the IR, the blast, the EMP or the resulting lack of running water, electricity and everything else. >>42711 Like that? https://www.sandia.gov/z-machine

>>42711 I also work in the field. The code I work on is straight rubbish but the mathematics and physics it's based on are sound, and I know for a fact that ALE3D, HYDRA, and BLAST are substantially better. Plus, the principles of operation for nuclear devices are already very well understood, as are the relevant material properties. It's not as if the design of modern warheads is any different from the ones they set off in the 20th century.

>>42716 >the code I work on is straight rubbish but ALE3D, HYDRA and BLAST are substantially better you understand the worry though, there are small but significant bugs in quite a lot of software. There is a lot going on here and a simple test of a whatever, 10 or 20 year old bomb would provide a baseline of Truth to validate these simulations with. I'm happy to place some faith in computer simulations, but this is an important question and its nice to have actual proof that these work. >its not as if the design of modern warheads is any different Sure, the first tests went well, the first bombs used went well, evidently its not difficult to make a working nuke. I think the big questions pertain to how they age. This isn't just about the core of the bomb but all the parts around it being filled up with little bits of hydrogen and such. >>42715 >z machine this is a device for exposing items to radiation so you can operate them and see whether/how well they work after and during by operating them. A nuke on a shelf doesn't need to be exposed to radiation, it has its own to-spec source in it already. But the difference between say a computer you'd test in this machine and a nuke, is that you can just turn the computer on and test it. The nuke, well we don't allow that anymore.

>>42669 i would kill myself like everybody else but before i do that, i would examine my environment, go on long walks to place that i recognised before nuclear war. if my guitar is still intact then i would bring it along with me, play a couple of tunes whilst sitting, viewing and pondering the sites honestly this is a beautiful way to kill myself, i would love to have a nuclear war to finally put an end to this miserable earth but that is simply a fantasy

>>42684 Naturally. Since that's where blacks will go first, thinking it's rich whitey and they got to use this opportunity to get dey reperashuns. Good luck, Shmuel. >>42695 >Byzantium style collapse where nobody wanted to stand for the Byzantium anymore This sounds oddly familiar. >>42704 >Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. You still don't want nuclear war for this. The warheads will certainly hit the cities and population centers first, which albeit gets rid of all the useless eaters, it's also where all the smart and industrious people are who work on improving efficiency and keeping things running. You will be left with a fraction of the current population which will mostly consist of rural and self sustaining people who will be able to go on just fine and will burn less fuel than current industry but at some point we will arrive here again, 100 years tops. And if you intend of having the same industrial capacity and level of technology as today then you need a large population of vastly useless people since that's the only statistically viable way to yield enough individuals who can make it possible. So what you want is actually population control and orderly eugenics to vastly reduce the number of the former and still have enough of the latter. Now the question is whether you can be honest about it.

>>42720 >there are small but significant bugs in quite a lot of software. Most typically the way that those bugs manifest will be that the program crashes. Very rarely you get memory corruption or bugs in the ALE remapping algorithm, and you can get issues like mesh tangling or falling off the EOS table that aren't really bugs and more like a badly set up input file, but those usually cause very obvious unphysical behavior. I can think of only once where a bug produced plausible but incorrect behavior, and it slipped through because I was the only person working on the code and nobody was doing code reviews. >This isn't just about the core of the bomb but all the parts around it being filled up with little bits of hydrogen and such. As I understand it, those parts are also regularly rebuilt. They can also do subcritical tests with the core taken out, just to be sure.

>>42733 >most typically the way those bugs manifest will be that yes and those bugs get caught because they're obvious and dont cause too much trouble because they're not subtle. I know for a fact that papers have gotten published using (little used feature of) major physics code where the math backend was simply implemented wrong. The result looks...fairly right, and hey its a simulation so you don't really know what you're expecting anyway. Takes a lot of hunting to figure out this sort of bug, but they do absolutely exist. >I can only think of one and how many people did this effect vs how many that you told about it ? Maybe the reason you dont hear about it is because people don't make as big a deal as they should. If the bugged soykaf gets into papers, starts potentially effecting a lot of people. The case I am most familiar with effected several papers, discoverer made some effort to let these people know but Im pretty sure zero retractions/edits/public notices were issued, anyone who reads those papers will have to do some digging to realize that their results are not to be depended upon at all.

>>42734 >I know for a fact that papers have gotten published using (little used feature of) major physics code where the math backend was simply implemented wrong. Which one? >and how many people did this effect vs how many that you told about it ? Approx 1

>>42732 The ironic thing about racists/eugenicists is that they would be emong the ones eliminated by any population-control system based on intelligence, since they have statistically lower intelligence than average.

>>42736 Is it better to be eliminated to be replaced by the most violent gang of looter or by carefully selected people? If population have to fall, it will either doom mankind to a new age of violence and brutality or a new golden age.

>>42736 >since they have statistically lower intelligence than average. Source not cited. Here is a source that presents an interesting alternative: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4845100/ ""The “ideological refinement perspective,” by contrast, contends that cognitively sophisticated members of a dominant racial group are no more committed to racial equality than their peers with lower ability (Jackman 1978, 1981, 1994; Jackman and Muha 1984). They are, however, better equipped to understand, analyze, and act on their group interests; to develop effective legitimizing ideologies for extant inequalities; and to articulate an astute defense of their social position. According to this perspective, high-ability members of a dominant group avoid overtly prejudicial views about subordinate groups because these attitudes have the potential to inflame intergroup relations and provoke challenges to the status quo. Instead, they placate subordinate group members by avoiding these inflammatory attitudes and by offering superficial support for racial equality in principle. But given their keen awareness of group interests, dominant group members with higher cognitive ability are no more likely to support concrete efforts to overcome the inequalities from which they benefit."" The trivial explanation: Being not-racist is trendy in academic/smartypants/"the elite" circles, so "smart ppl" identify as not-racists (as a corollary, high-IQ racists cannot be public about it w/o facing significant consequences, so you get a 2x filter). >world ends IIRC if you aren't in the glow-zone you will probably be OK if you know how to procure food and water. Unfortunately, 99% of people do not know how to procure food and water.

>>42736 Not only did you grossly misunderstood that post and just ran with faulty premises but instead of stopping to think for a minute you had to resort to underhanded insults, implying I'm a nazi and stupid. But luckily this website doesn't operate on reddit gold so I can bother explaining your error and how ill thought out your reply was. While there's certainly flaws with selecting by IQ since your midwittery would regrettably make the cut, in principle, artificial selection or eugenics work. They work repeatably. You have to deny many fundamental things to believe otherwise. What I don't believe will work however is for people to implement a system that won't be just selecting for attributes that are expedient for the current ruling class but will doom mankind in the long run. Chances are it's going to be another centrally planned disaster like the one child policy was. If you can't differentiate those things you should be careful about lamenting other's intelligence. Another fact is that the blank slate argument is utter nonsense. People are different. Groups and demographics differ on average (as you already pointed out and inadvertently accept this premise). And it's generally the rule that only 20% do 80% of the work. And the larger the organization the more likely will that be the case and even more disproportionate this ratio might get. The poster that I've replied to assumed that we can just have the same standard of living with a fraction of the current global population. But this is the dilemma you failed to understand and the other poster at least wasn't being open about. That in order for this to be the case, you can't just cull arbitrarily but you must select for the people that are crucial for keeping things running as they currently do. Because the blank slater alternative would cull too many of the people you need and you would just end up back in the middle ages. Evidence for that is how capable people are already treated today, how the schooling system is failing the gifted, all while we're beginning to talk about a "competency crisis". And I'm not talking about genetic determinism either but I just don't understand what's difficult to grasp with that concept? But for whatever reason our current ruling class, billionaires and other malthuseans don't seem to get that into their dense skulls either while also failing to consider how they will get by without the supply chains and infrastructure that they rely on the most.

>>42739 >Unfortunately, 99% of people do not know how to procure food and water. This is correct but 99% of people also know they are dead without the social cooperation of a society, so they will accept any level of inconveniences as long as they can still go home and have a meal. You can be in occupied France, have even potatoes being seized, have the milice at every street corner and the bombs at night, as long as it is possible to just live your life, 99% of the people will do what it take. Again, if you are in the glow zone, half of the people around you are dead and you are on of the (un)lucky one.

>>42739 >Source not cited. Study: Children assessed with low intelligence at age 10/11 are more likely to adopt right-wing ideologies and prejudiced attitudes by age 33. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187 More information: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice https://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html >>42741 >Naturally. Since that's where blacks will go first, thinking it's rich whitey and they got to use this opportunity to get dey reperashuns. Good luck, Shmuel. >So what you want is actually population control and orderly eugenics ... >neurosuggesting I'm a nazi and stupid That sure soundeds racist and Nazi to me, and would to most people. And I'm not saying you're stupid, just morally and socially retarded. >Now the question is whether you can be honest about it. Look who's talking. ^_^

>>42743 >Low IQ Linked to Prejudice Captain Obvious is back! >Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice My studies agree: my opposition is bad. They use the non scientific oversimplification of society between conservatives and liberals and their scientific study link that non scientific denomination that don't make sense outside of the US to stupidity and prejudice. Great. Let see how biased is it exactly. >"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. Yep, they just said that stupid people want a social structure and some sort of order and by opposition, intelligent people don't. I am sure they don't, I would know if I was intelligent. >Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Conclusion: people who don't like crimes tend to not like black people. I wish it was a joke about this study and not a neutral statement made by the study. Seriously, who think that schools shouldn't teach authority? The kids wouldn't even stay in school or listen to the teacher. Who think that life is easier if the two parents work more? >That sure soundeds racist and Nazi to me, Fun fact: Nazis had no problem with black people. Or Muslims. Or Asians. In fact, they admired Islam and had a deep respect for most Asian cultures. No, you just want to link people you don't like -American racists- with something bad. It's not a surprise that you are attracted to studies like this one. Back to the topic: >pretend that some countries i will not name engage in [...], as a result, half of the world is destroyed, We don't need a lot of imagination.

>>42744 >Fun fact: Nazis had no problem with black people. Or Muslims. Or Asians Citation needed. Hitler's thoughts on black people seems to be identical to the modern "great replacement" story. Excerpt from Mein Kampf (Thomas Dalton translation): "The Jews were and are responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the hated white race, and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that he himself might dominate. "

>>42743 So only more ad hominems, appeal to authority and addressing me instead of my argument. If what that poster was seeking was a reduced population but things still running as they are now, then they must reduce it in a way that retains all the people that keep it running. Instead of what they've suggested going with a nuclear blast which acts indiscriminately and destroys infrastructure. I am not sure I can put this in more simple terms than this so if you still struggle to follow then you're probably not as witty as you believe you are and are best to just stop for a minute and reflect and lurk moar. You clearly know little of the world and have not contributed anything meaningful so far. If OP's scenario took place you would find yourself drowning in all the surprise about how things truly work. But of course you also might be trolling and wasting everyone's time on purpose, in which case good job Einstein, you "succeeded". >>42744 Man, racists are weird. They don't care what skin color or nationality you are as long as you're being racist.

>>42746 >citation needed cmon everyone knows hitler loved dogs, stands to reason blacks would be in the same camp.

>>42746 Those were occupation forces, French colonial soldiers. Who behaved poorly. Good luck making a great replacement theory where there isn't a single black person living in Germany. His admiration of Islam is public, he described it as a manly religion unlike Christianity that promote victimism. Yeah, basically he had a problem with Christianity.

>>42749 >Those were occupation forces, French colonial soldiers. Who behaved poorly. Sure man, let's just ignore why he thinks they're bd (because they're having mixed-race kids). >Good luck making a great replacement theory where there isn't a single black person living in Germany. Well, he did make that theory.

>>42754 >The great replacement theory is from Adolph This is simply false. I don't remember the name of the French guy who invented the concept but that not the Austrian painter. Listen, you have a bucket and you throw everything you don't like in this bucket. American racism against black, 80 year old political movements in central Europe, modern theories, everything is the same to you. It's not. At the time, there was no mass immigration from the third world in Europe, it was Europeans going to America. What existed is the idea that Germans are a belliquous race and in order to prevent another massive war in Europe, we should get rid of them. It existed only in intellectual circles and wasn't mainstream even there but of course it became a regular propaganda point for Adolph. And yes, occupation soldiers who "behaved poorly" had kids with the local, most of the time non consenting women. Do you really want me to explain why it was unpopular and why every political side tried to milk this reject of the occupation? Ho, wait, do you believe the lie that Germany was always 20% Turkish and 10% black, even in the middle age?

The only sane way to reduce population is the method recently used by China: pass a law limiting the number of children people can have. It's fair, unbiased, applies to everyone equally, and leaves selection of the fittest to nature where it belongs, instead of putting it in the hands of demented eugenicists and ethnic cleansers.

>>42757 I find it amusing and scary that it was less effective than modernity.

>>42756 >>The great replacement theory is from Adolph >This is simply false. Listen all I'm saying is he neatly summarizes and endorses the story in his book. It's right there in the text. >American racism against black, 80 year old political movements in central Europe, modern theories, everything is the same to you. Funnily enough, being racist against blacks was one of the least controversial, most utterly samey things in the Nazi platform at the time. In that respect they were hardly different from any other European state. Probably why nobody really bothers mentioning it. >black men are coming in to the country and raping white women! Yeah, this is definitely not a story that is easier to believe with no evidence if you hate blacks. That's definitely not why it became widely accepted. No-siree.

>>42757 It was biased though - it ended up destroying their men/women ratio because everyone wanted a boy since girls couldnt provide for parents. This is also a practical example of "fairness" being fake. Academic brains tend to look at laws isolated and ignore circumstances make "unbiased" rules unfair. You want natural selection? Then go back to no laws, no medicine, no welfare. Every social system is preventing natural selection from taking place.

>>42673 >watch out And skip out on a free meal? :)

>>42669 Probably most regions of the world that aren't near or downwind from a missile field or blown-up nuclear reactor will be perfectly safe from radiation within a few days at most (and most places will have virtually no radiation hazard). The reason for this is that air-bursting nuclear weapons (the most efficient attack profile for causing general mayhem & destruction) produce negligible radioactive fallout. You only use ground-level detonations for fortified targets such as bunkers and ICBM silos. Even then, radiological events like the Chernobyl meltdown caused contamination orders of magnitude greater than the effects of a single ground-bursting nuke, and regardless, there's no reason a human population couldn't survive in the Chernobyl exclusion zone (albeit with horrifying cancer rates). You'd need a purpose-built Dr. Strangelove doomsday machine to significantly contaminate a large portion of the globe with radioactive fallout. >>42695 I think even a 500-warhead scenario seems kinda unrealistic (2000 is just stupid. Even Russia doesn't keep that many on standby anymore). In a war scenario, a country like Russia or China is probably way more interested in cratering geographically proximate US + allied military bases and strategic arsenal sites than random mid-size cities. A government would probably also want to hold at least few score delivery systems and warheads in reserve, just in case a third party decided to take crack at them (the world just got very unstable after all). I think in an exchange scenario you'd want to economize your civilian targets to do just enough damage that an opponent will be too busy rebuilding to come after you in the forseeable future. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-05/united-states-nuclear-weapons-2024/#post-heading https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/russian-nuclear-weapons-2024/#post-heading > If Russia and the US start exchanging nukes, they will both nuke China as well to prevent it from becoming the next superpower That is a positively retarded idea. It virtually guarantees you eat an extra few hundred extra nukes when China magdumps their arsenal in response. And it's not like China (or anyone else) would be doing well after the world economy tanked. The biggest killer in a nuclear war would be the global economic collapse that would inevitably result from the most power countries in the world shredding each other's industrial and logistical capacities. The result of the collapse would kill billions in famine (if your country doesn't have a domestic energy supply and enough arable land to feed itself, ur fukt), and probably hundreds of millions more die in civil wars. Highly specialized supply chains fall apart and technology regresses by 50-100 years. Civilization is plunged into a dark age for the next century or more. I think the effects of the collapse would vary widely from region to region, with import dependent countries being massively depopulated and relatively self-sufficient (& intact) industrialized regions getting not being affected too badly (still much poorer than before but pre-war society continues to function). Another under-appreciated effect of a nuclear war is that it would wipe out the existing orbital infrastructure. Military satellites are essential for global militaries communications and navigation and would be the first things the major powers would target in a strategic exchange. It is very likely that most if not all satellites would be taken out either by the debris fields created by these attacks or lack of maintenance as countries either dissolve or can no longer afford space programs.

>>42792 >It virtually guarantees you eat an extra few hundred extra nukes when China magdumps their arsenal in response. If they only see a sub throwing nukes at their cities, they can't attack only you in particular, and if you know all your towns are already missing, what can they do to you anyway? You only choose if what is left will be invaded by them or not. >Highly specialized supply chains fall apart and technology regresses by 50-100 years. Yes. Also, of your country export food, you will be mostly fine. Yes, our industry will have to build the good old motors that can run on liquefied coal like our grandfathers did so the tractors can run. Big deal.

>>42793 >If they only see a sub Well, if they see SLBM launches out by Hawaii, they might have a pretty good idea of who's behind it, ditto for Vladivostok. Strategic launches don't exactly happen in a vacuum. And maybe they won't know exactly where the missiles come from if you've already hit their satellites, but you do that they know exactly who did it and will probably have already given launch orders by the time your ICBMS show up on ground radar. >What can they do to you anyway? If you didn't systematically cripple their military, they still have a window of opportunity before the collapse impacts the world in earnest to scout and nuke whatever interesting targets the Russians may have missed. It wouldn't be particularly hard to if most your military infrastructure was targeted by the Russians initially. Finally, these extra intact nukes and launchers you propose using on China is exactly what you'd want to deter an opportunistic military aggression after you have used/lost most of your nuclear arsenal. That's what a 2nd strike capability is for. > Yes, our industry will have to build the good old motors that can run on liquefied coal I don't think you appreciate how complex globalized production processes are. I guarantee you just about every currently operating industrial plant in the world depends on specialized components or resources from overseas to function. When the world economy shuts down these plants & factories are all on a countdown of days to weeks to months before they become next to useless. During this time a society has to rapidly transition to relative self-sufficiency, an absolutely insane venture even if the world system wasn't coming apart. Sure, some countries and regions might have the right combination of resources & domestic industry to avoid mass famine, but they'll be the lucky ones, and being "fine" will mean North Korean living standards.

>>42816 >being fine will mean nork living standards the norks arent that bad but then they have the chinese economy to mooch off of. The biggest immediate problem you're missing here is that for the first little while you're not caring so much about production as about transport. If you just had a big nuclear exchange, you've got a large number of cities that are kinda ruined, millions of people pouring out as refugees, a large military mobilization, and at the same time major road junctions, air/sea ports and rail yards are just gone while those that remain are being seized by the military and flooded with refugees who are rapidly running out of gas. Even if you have enough food and everything in your country, how do you get it where it needs to go ? You don't even know where it needs to go.

>>42820 >the norks arent that bad but then they have the chinese economy to mooch off of. Their nuclear program probably balances things out. I was thinking about the collapse problem for a non-aligned country that was not devastated by a nuclear exchange. And while I think nuclear attacks against civilian targets will be less prevalent than depicted in media, a country that just lost its 100 most important shipping ports, airports, Railway yards, and highway junctions, most likely won't be 'fine' after the collapse. That's why small-scale nuclear powers like France or India that maintain a countervalue strike capacity only have stockpiles of a few hundred war heads at most because you probably only need half that many to fuarrrk over whoever attacks you.

>>42822 >I think nuclear attacks against civilian targets will be less prevalent than depicted in media pretty much every major seaport is in a real city. Pretty much every major rail yard, too. A lot of military bases, most major road junctions, a lot of the weapons industry. Nuclear silos, OK maybe not so much, but even if you are *really* trying to avoid hitting civilian targets it is extremely difficult to do an effective attack that doesn't strike a country's major population centers yet still has a serious effect on their economic capacity to make war. And even if you did somehow manage it, the big cities are going to be pouring out refugees just the same, maybe more of them, when their food stops coming in. economies are so integrated that even distant satellite states are going to be suffering the exact same supply issues even if they didn't take a single hit. In a major exchange the primary powers are going to be literally nuking their own major trading partners, who incidentally are the primary trading partners of everyone one the planet, and there's a very real chance that targets of international importance like the panama canal will be hit as well, though no one will care too much at that point. the only countries which will remain mostly unaffected are ones that really only have export economies and are basically self sufficient and are generally unaligned and also don't directly neighbor on anything thats involved. Im sorry, what countries are we talking about here ? the sentinel islands ?

I just read earlier today that the USA has already started an overhaul of its nuclear capability that will cost well over a trillion dollars.

>>42671 >The unregulated dumping of gasses into the air has led to a runaway greenhouse effect and now we're slowly on the way to ending up like Venus, a literal hell planet. It's the current year and ppl still believe this?

>>42830 What I mean, by that is that the popular depiction of a nuclear attack in media are these all-consuming explosions that incinerate entire cities. This depiction is based off the tactics used with older ICBMs and bombers which could be widely inaccurate and so used 1 - 10 megaton weapons to make sure they destroyed whatever target the nuke was nominally going for. Modern ballistic missiles are fairly accurate in comparison so instead of carrying a single massive warhead, it carries several independently targetable war heads in the 100 KT range, an order of magnitude less powerful. These explosions wouldn't be flattening cities but rather districts within cities, with other areas mostly intact. That goes back to my original point that the main killer in a nuclear war would be global economic and supply chain collapse rather than direct casualties of the war itself. To illustrate this. Here's what it would look like if one hit all the interesting military targets in San Diego with 100kt weapons. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?t=f74155b7fa3c8a2f6e7ee947cbf6987b

>>42837 MIRV is getting phased out as part of new START but yes its a nice idea. thanks obama I observe that this went from 'population centers won't be so much of a target' to 'yes they will be popping like four ten-times-hiroshoma scale bombs onto individual cities because of legitimate military targets'. Yes, its not complete obliteration in a bath of glowing light. Read the Hiroshina Diary, very interesting account by a doctor who was there. Many will survive and see Hell on Earth.

>>42847 100KT is enough to do a really massive amount of damage. You would still have millions dead, at the very least, and your industrial capacity completely destroyed.

>>42848 New Start expires in two years and, at present, its renewal seems unlikely. Bilateral strategic arms control is probably a dead concept now that China is expanding its own nuclear arsenal. And yes, several warheads 5 times more powerful than the WW2 bombs is a very significant step down from dropping a multi-megaton weapon on city just be sure you get everything.

>>42709 >>42846 Actually its possible just unlikely according to current models, which may be wrong because they are still immature. >A runaway greenhouse could in theory be triggered by increased greenhouse forcing, but anthropogenic emissions are probably insufficient. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1892 In a few billion years from now, when the sun becomes a red dwarf Earth will be cooked like Venus. Humanity will probably be long gone by then anyway.

Civil War 2024/25 Lets Gooooooooo!

>>42851 It appears the surface temperature would have to reach 310K (~36C) average? Right now it's about 15C. It seems that a 25% surface albedo would be necessary -- which seems to mean lack of cloud cover? And even then it seems that their "extreme anthropogenic" scenario is more than just unlikely, it's over three times the absolute worst-case emissions projections for the next hundred years.

>>42830 >even if you are *really* trying to avoid hitting civilian You don't seem to understand. Do you think the allied flattened all Jap and German cities as a collateral? The goal of strategic warfare is to make the civilians too focused on survival to provide for the war effort. The weapons industries are why you want to invade the country in the first place. They are the collateral. >>42858 The US military haven't planed on how to establish a friendly state in Iraq and Afghanistan, not before invading, not after 15 years of occupation. They had a plan for the war against terror and it gave birth to ISIS and another one in Africa. They implemented women in combat roles without any plan to integrate them correctly, they have no plan to not miss their recruitment goals. You can make a cat walk on a keyboard and he would write better plans than the US army. The only thing they do correctly is to give a lot of money to private contractor, which is their first job. Everything else is just an accessory, that's why they have flawless plans for a one trillion dollars plane program but none for anything else.

>>42858 So your saying Mars and Venus didn't experience apocalyptic changes to its climate and this is a big lie cooked up by petrodollar companies because... well... I don't get it. Why would they make that up?

>>42858 >>Climate change: The only thing the US military isn't watching! id ask what youre smoking but i bet it would just make me paranoid. There's a lot of information on climate change that was leaked or declassified from the pentagon, actually. of course your petrodollar-backed "dissident" media isn't going to give it much attention. https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Tackling-the-Climate-Crisis/ https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/1049222045/the-pentagon-says-climate-change-is-having-a-negative-impact-on-national-securit The DoD is interested in climate change and resource shortage because it will increase global conflict, their plan is to anticipate where this will occur and "secure" those areas. basically, the response is to get more authoritarian and preemptively crush revolts.

>>42859 >And you don't seem to understaaaaand I was merely suggesting a hypothetical; even if you could avoid direct civilian casualties, if you do that much damage to the economy you will get massive civilian casualties anyway. One might say that in total war, civilians don't exist, and one might be correct, but we all know what that term means anyway. >you can make a cat walk on a keyboard Desert Storm was very well done. I know its like two generations ago at this point but that was smooth. Yeah there was the stuff with sand getting everywhere, coarse and dry, yeah it wasn't perfect but as war goes it was prettymuch as good as it gets, a solid plan and near perfect execution across the board.

WAKE UP! We are being told what to dream! The end of the world??? The only thing ending here is YOU, boi!!! Why would you need to world to end in your time? Is it because this way you zoom your concentration to a fully selfish view of only your ego and existence right now? The world is YOUR'S... but it is not out of kindness that we give YOU the world. There is malice in it, we want you to consume as if there is no tomorrow, we want you to give us your all. Most of all we want your future, the future that you've given yourself leave to not plan for because "the world is ending". You will die, this is true. But how can you forget your family! Your kin! In great likelihood you will be survived by someone and they will be survived by others. Memento mori but do also remember that something survives... To answer your question, I would dedicate my life to recovering the ancient relics of Anime and reviving that culture. ^_^

>>42862 >Posts one of the documents referenced in the quoted text That's kinda exactly what I was talking about. That's a paper on the environmental effects of the petrodollar at large. There are people who actually believe there are no papers on the economic effects of the petrodollar at large: The collapse of the petrodollar will be controlled, yes? That's obvious. Climate change will collapse the petrodollar, correct? This means that climate change as it's perceived will be controlled, exacerbated, ideologued, advertised and politicized, as well as lied about in as many official documents as possible to throw off other militaries' planning: This is the intelligence doctrine of every first world country since the age of information began, and to think it suddenly changed would frankly be stupid/crazy/ignorant. Yes climate change is real and human pollution is disgusting. Information is also a weapon. NASA even had a fantastic and problematic study about how carbon dioxide specific warming is impossible at the anthropogenic scaleI said CO2 specifically not methane nor myriad other greenhouse/aerosol pollutants, which are enough to kill everything anyway but if CO2 is irrelevant then the climate change meme(which exists in parallel to the real climate change actually currently happening) won't successfully crash the US economy, as is and has always been the plan of the US military. To reiterate, as climate change is just as much of a religious matter in as it is hardcore irrefutable science: There are errors in many models that were put there intentionally, such as forgetting entire jetstreams or oceanic currents. People are inventing bullkaf about warming that isn't true, and pollution is a horrifying issue that needs to be fixed ASAP. This could all be oil company advertisement/maneuvering, I don't care, I reiterate, People [b]are inventing bullkaf about warming that isn't true[/b] and the devout and faithful zealous idealogues among them have turned those lies into a religion. Once again, yes we need to stop human pollution at all costs or everything on the planet will die. I can still question scientific/moral discrepancies in the findings, that's literally the job of the scientific minded, to question eachother ruthlessly.

>>42862 >The DoD is interested in climate change They're interested in virtue signalling about it since they are the biggest polluters by far. An F-15 with afterburners emits more CO2 in 5 minutes then you do in a lifetime of driving a car. >your petrodollar-backed "dissident" media It's a funny world where the side that believes in global warming also supports every war that's sold to them and the side that wants to end all the wars also thinks global warming is bullshit. Anyway contrary to what you're implying oil companies are all on board with the global warming narrative as long as nuclear energy is suppressed. That's the only thing they are really scared of. In the end of the day it doesn't matter how hard you push the global warming nonsense you will never replace fossil fuels with windmills and solar panels. Only nuclear can put the oil industry out of business but for some reason the environmental "activists" have no interest in supporting nuclear. >>42872 >That's a paper on the environmental effects of the petrodollar at large. There are people who actually believe there are no papers on the economic effects of the petrodollar at large You keep using this word in strange contexts. What do you think the petrodollar is? It's an agreement between the US and oil producing countries to only sell oil for dollars. It's a scheme to create artificial demand for dollars. It has already been broken several times in the last few years with countries selling oil to russia and china for yuan and gold. It is not the only reason why the dollar is the world reserve currency though.

>>42931 >It's a funny world where the side that believes in global warming also supports every war that's sold to them and the side that wants to end all the wars also thinks global warming is bullshit. Idk I think opposing the war on palestine is probably very highly correlated with believing in climate change, and that one has A LOT of money. They're literally trying to make criticism of Israel illegal these days. >Anyway contrary to what you're implying oil companies are all on board with the global warming narrative as long as nuclear energy is suppressed. *publicly >In the end of the day it doesn't matter how hard you push the global warming nonsense you will never replace fossil fuels with windmills and solar panels. I agree, but a diverse portfolio making use of all available power generation methods where they're practical is much better than this (mostly ideological) insistance on a monculture. Wind power can be very practical in some places where nuclear isn't and vice-versa.

>>42932 That's not 'opposing the war in Palestine' that's picking the other side. Actually opposing the war is a third position that doesn't really give either of the belligerents what they want. Most wars are like this. >>42931 with officers like that can you really say they're not legitimately interested ? I for one think there's a real danger they do care.

>>42935 >That's not 'opposing the war in Palestine' that's picking the other side. Can you explain how? Are the people calling for ceasefire "supporting Palestine"?

>>42937 OK most of the people Ive talked to IRL who seem to be 'left' are maybe pro cease fire and maybe anti war but they also want major concessions, from the Jews and focus in complaining about horrors enacted by the Jews to the complete exclusion of those done against them. The way many people talk about war, these days anyway, its a rare person indeed who does not at his heart want peace. Everyone wants a ceasefire, but what they want even more are certain things from their enemies. Ukraine seems like they would be willing to accept a ceasefire that recognizes their claimed borders, including territory they've hardly been in control of for the last decade. I'm sure Stalin would have accepted a ceasefire provided Germany would surrender to complete annexation along with all of her holdings, and Lincoln wanted a ceasefire wherein Dixie would merely agree that it was in fact under his authority, while Dixie would gladly have taken one if Lincoln would only agree it wasn't. Obviously there's like a billion people in the world I'm sure some of them just want a ceasefire everyone to drop their rifles and hug and sing kumbaya but most of the people of this type that I meet want concessions.

>>42935 >with officers like that can you really say they're not legitimately interested ? Might have shot myself in the foot there lol >>42932 >I think opposing the war on palestine is probably very highly correlated with believing in climate change Nobody on your side ever ever talks about CO2 emissions and the military though. You oppose Israel because they are the evil white colonials bullying the weak oppressed persons of browness. I'd go so far as to say if Israelis had dark skin and Palestinians had white skin you would ignore the whole situation, you know like, South Africa. >Wind power can be very practical in some places where nuclear isn't and vice-versa. Except wind power is a scam. The energy that goes into construction is barely made back before the thing breaks and is thrown into a landfill. >>42946 >most of the people Ive talked to IRL who seem to be 'left' are maybe pro cease fire and maybe anti war but they also want major concessions, from the Jews Oh no what a terrible concession it would be for Israel to give back the land they stole and apologize for decades of genocide and oppression, I've never heard anything so unreasonable.

>>42947 >you would ignore the whole situation, you know like, South Africa (x). The Palestinians did a horrible attack against the Israelis and they'd be supporting the retaliation. >Oh no what a terrible concession it would be everyone states their own war agenda to sound reasonable. The Israelis would tell you about how this horrible terrorist organization operates with the functional support and protection of the civilian population of Palestine and continues to conduct senselessly violent attacks against the people of Israel, including civilians, children, etc. Is it unreasonable to want it destroyed ? Personally I'm an American and I honestly don't like either side. Got to just idk cut the country in half or something ?

>>42947 >>42946 >but they also want major concessions Do they think the ceasefire should be contingent on these concessions? As in, do they think HAMAS should continue fighting until they get those concessions? If not, then they're still anti-war, they just think that Israel also ought to stop keeping Gaza a ghetto. >and focus in complaining about horrors enacted by the Jews to the complete exclusion of those done against them. To be frank, Israel has done easily ten times worse than HAMAS. It's not even close and hasn't been for a very long time. Also, you shouldn't conflate Israel with Jews. Support for Israel among the Jewish population is a lot more mixed than most people, including most Zionists, think. >I'm sure Stalin would have accepted a ceasefire provided Germany would surrender to complete annexation along with all of her holdings, and Lincoln wanted a ceasefire wherein Dixie would merely agree that it was in fact under his authority, while Dixie would gladly have taken one if Lincoln would only agree it wasn't. Conquering a state's central cities is pretty different from reclaiming a distant province you lost ten years ago to an invading force. >>42947 >Nobody on your side ever ever talks about CO2 emissions and the military though Searched up 'Military CO2', got tons of results like this one: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/warfares-climate-emissions-are-huge-but-uncounted/ >The energy that goes into construction is barely made back before the thing breaks and is thrown into a landfill. Energy can be cheaper in one place where they construct it than in a different place where they use it. For instance, maybe the wind power factory runs off of nuclear power. I'm also a little dubious about "barely made back", I recall investigating a similar claim a long time ago and finding it was bunk. >>42948 >Is it unreasonable to want it destroyed ? It is unreasonable to want extermination of a massive civilian population for crimes done by a relatively small terrorist organization. >Got to just idk cut the country in half or something ? Two-state solutions are very popular in the US, more popular among demoncrats than repooblicans https://news.gallup.com/poll/611375/americans-views-israel-palestinian-authority-down.aspx but its popularity has dropped sharply in both Israel and Palestine https://theconversation.com/as-international-support-for-an-independent-palestine-grows-heres-what-israelis-and-palestinians-now-think-of-the-two-state-solution-230575

>>42948 >Is it unreasonable to want it destroyed ? The last thing Israel wants to do is actually destroy Hamas because then they'd have no excuse for giving Palestinians their freedom and autonomy. >>42949 >Searched up 'Military CO2', got tons of results I only get half a page before it degenerates into military OR co2 results. To take your example scientificamerican wrote 3 articles about military CO2 emissions and 1 of them is just "Russia bad" in disguise. https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=site%3Awww.scientificamerican.com+military+co2 >Energy can be cheaper in one place where they construct it than in a different place where they use it. And the product just teleports between these two places without using any energy? You should patent that idea.

>>42950 >And the product just teleports between these two places without using any energy? The energy expenditure for transport might be worth it. We ship fuel around all the time...

>>42949 oh I just read that theconversation.com piece more closely, it seems the outlook is a lot brighter than I thought based on reading the intro.

>>42949 >Do they think the ceasefire should be contingent on these concessions? Fair question, don't know, I guess it does hinge on this. >To be frank, Israel has done easily ten times worse than HAMAS IMHO (Im autistic) Israel has precisely zero obligation to Palestinians and in the service of its duty to protect its citizens from foreign attack it is very justified to destroy those who attack it. Failure to defend its citizens is the worst thing it has done. Simultaneously pretty much the same thing goes for the Palestinians so tough bind. I guess if you as a third party care about one faction or the other or both in a sort of panhumanist ideology then you can make that judgement but myself I don't care. My only regret is the US' part in the creation and continuation of the modern state of israel, and the situation. >Conquering a state's central cities is pretty different from You're just not being creative in your spin. Got to think about liberating the oppressed, about toppling tyrannies and all that stuff. Stalin would have been advancing the common interest of the entire proletariat, frankly the entire productive population of Europe, while saving them from Fascist and bourgeoisie tyranny. Talk about a Great, Patriotic War if ever there was one. >It is unreasonable to want extermination of a massive civilian population for crimes done by a relatively small terrorist organization. From what I can tell this 'civilian population' is actively aiding and Hamas to hide among them. Its not a big country and Hamas is a big organization within it, if the people wanted to give Hamas up, to kill them, to make their life impossible, they would and could. AFAIK they're not. I haven't met many Palestinians but the ones I have were openly bloodthirsty for Israel. Maybe they're justified, this isn't really a new conflict, but that's the situation. >just cut the country in half this was meant as a joke. Something about a King Solomon and a baby.

>>42953 > has precisely zero obligation to Palestinians They have the same obligation not to murder civilians that you and I have. Doesn't matter what nationality they are. >You're just not being creative in your spin. You're just bringing unrelated historical events into the discussion to make things look bad by association. >From what I can tell this 'civilian population' is actively aiding and Hamas to hide among them That doesn't make them not civilians. And really, if there two groups of guys with guns in your area and one of them will blow up your apartment building for no reason... which one do you pick? >this was meant as a joke. Not a good joke. Didn't laugh.

>>42954 Oh yeah, also note that the average Palestinian is WAY more affected by this conflict than an average Israeli. There is a good reason people are calling this a genocide. It's even the stated goal.

>>42955 How about the 2000 isrealies, mosty civilians, including women and children, murdered in hamas' unprovoked surprise attack? How about the 200 hostages, including old people, women, and children, taken hostage by hamas, raped, murdered, starved? Do you think they were very much affect by this war that the Palestinians started for no reason? The Palestinians have only Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorism in general to blame for their destruction. Only a complete hypocrite and ass would blame this all on the Issraelis. They are destroying a malevolentd evil. May they succeed overwhelmingly.

>>42956 >how about Israeli civilian casualties? 2,000 at most. Those are rookie numbers. Try 40,000 (at least). >Do you think they were very much affect by this war that the Palestinians started for no reason? Learn some history if you think Oct 7 was the start of it. While it was a brutal surprise attack, it was not unprovoked. >They are destroying a malevolentd evil. May they succeed overwhelmingly. This is your brain on Israeli propaganda. Anyway I think this discussion has pretty clearly shown that the Israel/Palestine war is an example where >>42931 is incorrect.

>>42954 >same obligation to not murder civilians that you and I have in the recent conflict they clearly have the justification that they were attacked, their people were murdered, also civilians. If I knowingly hide a murderer and assist him as he plans and prepares his murder, as well as after, then I'm not an innocent bystander I am an accomplice, and by this logic the Palestinian people are by and large accomplices. >That doesn't make them not civilians, And really, if there two groups of guys with guns in your area and one of them will blow up your apartment building for no reason... which one do you pick? Oh the last thing I'm trying to do is to suggest the Palestinians aren't justified. They're both justified, its an old conflict and I rather doubt anyone knows who started it, and no one can really tally up all the offenses over the millennia. When two factions have really important things that they won't give up, that is frequently when wars start. This is an old fight, the real tallies are lost to history as is who struck the first blow, but now they just hate eachother and have good reason to do so both. >not a good joke well I laughed so who's to say ehh who's to say

>>42960 >If I knowingly hide a murderer and assist him as he plans and prepares his murder, as well as after, then I'm not an innocent bystander I am an accomplice It would still not necessarily be justified to kill you for that. Knowingly letting a murderer sleep in your house does not make you a murderer. Still bad but not worthy of a death sentence IMO. Additionally, an airstrike doesn't always discriminate between people who just happen to be in the area and people who are providing material aid to the enemy, and the IDF (and HAMAS, of course) has been pretty blase about determining which is which. Your post exemplifies the logic of total war, which in my view is unethical in all circumstances. It's unethical when HAMAS does it and it's unethical when Israel does it, but Israel is doing it substantially more at this stage. >its an old conflict and I rather doubt anyone knows who started it It started in the 1940s, when the Zionist movement began picking up steam and Jews started migrating into the area en masse, having the land granted to them by the Brits, forcing (with varying levels of force depending who you ask) many Palestinians out of their homes.

>>42962 >started in the fourties ok sure this chapter of it did. if you want it that way then lets blame the UN or something for not putting the jews in IDK madagascar or central australia or something instead, or figuring out some other sort of permanent solution. >logic of total war limited war can only be conducted practically when both sides agree to obey the limits. If one decides otherwise then it gives him an advantage over his enemy. >would still not necessarily be justified to kill you for that he's in my house, I am not giving him up, he is mixed up among my other guests. Israel either gives up and says that killing their citizens is a-ok, or they do their darndest to get him anyway.

>>42963 >ok sure this chapter of it did. If you want to include literally every conflict between Jews and people living in the area currently called Palestine within the same conflict, then sure, but that's way overly broad. Most of the legitimate grievances that people on both sides currently have are in living memory. >lets blame the UN or something for not putting the jews in IDK madagascar or central australia or something instead There are better ways to handle a refugee crisis than assigning them some plot of land, and there are better ways the Zionists could have handled moving in to their new homeland. None of this was inevitable. >limited war can only be conducted practically when both sides agree to obey the limits. You can at least make a fuarrrking effort. >If one decides otherwise then it gives him an advantage over his enemy. Not in the case where that side already has an overwhelming advantage in arms and international support. Engaging in genocidal total war also tends to make you unpopular internationally, since it shows you're a bloodthirsty savage that cannot be trusted. Just look at how it's going for Israel. >he's in my house, I am not giving him up, he is mixed up among my other guests. If you saw a report where the police exploded an apartment block because the people in that block, including small children who couldn't be expected to understand what is going on, weren't giving up a fugitive, would you think "serves them right"? If you would, then I think we simply have incompatible ethical beliefs. Yours are certainly incompatible with all international (and most national) laws.

guys guys, stop being antisemitic, if it was the USA bombing Palestine nobody would bat an eye but suddenly because its our jewbros doing it we care??? we have to accept Israel as one of us, we got cool technology, we go to raves, we do homosex and drugs, they our bros, the arabs they not like us, they poor.

>>42951 >The energy expenditure for transport might be worth it. We ship fuel around all the time... And how are you going to efficiently transport your "green energy" products without fossil fuels? Something is always left out of these "zero carbon" calculations whether it's manufacturing costs, transportation costs, mining costs or simply forgetting that on the other side a cool 50% of petrol/diesel cost is tax. >>42963 >if you want it that way then lets blame the UN or something No it is specifically Britain's fault. Palestine was their colony. During WW2 British officials separately promised the same land to jewish groups and arab groups at the same time in exchange for helping the Allies with the war effort. In the inevitable political scuffle that came after the war jews had better diplomatic relations and negotiation skills with the British government than the arabs did so the arabs were the ones who ended up getting fuarrrked out of the land. >he's in my house, I am not giving him up, he is mixed up among my other guests. Your assumption that palestinians would have any kind of autonomy or peaceful life without hamas is completely misguided. It is not the same as a bank robber running into your house and now you're culpable for not calling the cops. Gaza is a prison camp, the israelis control all entries points and will not let the palstinian leave or fish or trade with the rest of the world. There are no cops in this situation. The israelis are the prison guards and they are shooting prisoners at random. Your cellmate is hiding a knife, you have literally nothing to gain and everything to lose by ratting him out. >>42966 The funniest thing about zionist propaganda targeted at the lgbq community is that all the pictures of militant muslims throwing gays from rooftops are of israel/usa funded sunni "rebel groups" operating in places like lebanon and syria not hamas or hezbollah.

>>42967 >no its specifically Britain Sure, Britain made a mess of their departure and probably shouldn't have departed, least of all without a proper government in place. UN did have its fingers around in it though. >Your assumption that palestinians would have any kind of autonomy or peaceful life is completely misguided Look I am not trying to say the Palestinians and Hamas are not 100% justified, they seem to be well justified. My point, is simply that the Israelis are also well justified. I imagine the Israelis could handle the situation better, but the Palestinians could also, and in the end it seems that if both remain in the country, then disorder and conflict shall remain also. If either side wants it resolved and to retain power in the region it seems they must strive for the removal of the other. >If you want to include literally every conflict between Jews Jews have a nack for ticking off pretty much everyone they stick around with >There are better ways to handle a refugee crisis than... enlighten me ? >You can at least make a fugging effort they let Palestine exist for a very long time >Not in the case where that side already has an overwhelming advantage One advantage does not complete superiority make and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It should however be noted that in places like Vietnam and Afganistan and all of that the US with its MASSIVE superiority in terms of numbers, weapons, technology, etc etc was given a terribly difficult time. If in either of these cases the US had simply decided to exterminate the enemy people, there's a good chance those wars would have come out very differently. I dont get the impression that Israel is actually trying to exterminate the Palestinians they are just being less careful about avoiding killing random people in the way to their targets. >If you saw a report where the police exploded an apartment block Different situation. My country police have a duty to the protection of my countrymen, and if they kill 100 innocents of my people to get one murderer then they have failed. If they kill 10000 foreigners to get one murderer of my countryman this is obviously a success. Naturally the foreign country would be upset about this and frequently it is easier to simply agree with the foreign country that they will give him up or capture and punish him themselves, and this can be acceptable, but if not then sure, to war. Perhaps we do have incompatible ethical beliefs haha, but such things as international law are mostly a joke. Palestine doesn't seem to have a particularly established country and perhaps israel is at fault for this

>>42969 >If either side wants it resolved and to retain power in the region it seems they must strive for the removal of the other. The only reason the conflict keeps going is because Israel has access to unlimited resources via America. If they had to pay for their own bombs then the war would be over tomorrow. >My country police have a duty to the protection of my countrymen No they don't. Literally they don't. Lookup the law. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/ >If they kill 10000 foreigners to get one murderer of my countryman this is obviously a success. Not when the foreigners who where targeted retaliate. You post soykaf like this, implicitly supporting all the evil soykaf your government does to other people but I bet you are shocked pikachu face when there is a terrorist attack near you. Obviously the terrorists just hate you because they hate freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence) >Palestine doesn't seem to have a particularly established country and perhaps israel is at fault for this Jews suck their own dicks too much with this talking point. Without constant US aid (i.e. taxes stolen from US workers) then there would be no difference between tel aviv and gaza or any other desert soykafhole.

I hate yall so much. Why can't currant thing posters curtail their discussion to currant thing threads?

>>42971 >Not when the foreigners who where targeted retaliate. obviously, my point is just that there is no inherent value which should be placed on them. Kindness can be rendered to them for the benefit of us, rather than for their own benefit. I thought that was obvious. I know prior to this present conflict israel wasn't exactly kind and generous to the Palestinians but they weren't as violent either. If treating with some dignity does not produce a situation beneficial to Israel then there is no reason for Israel to treat with dignity. >Jews suck their own dicks too much with this talking point oh I was mostly referring to a functional government that might not conduct pointless attacks against its neighbors which inevitably bring down retaliations, and would reign in the angers of its more liberal members that they do not, either. The situation with a murderer hiding in Palestine is a bit different than one hiding in I don't know, Israel, which actually will punish its own people for murdering mexicans under US protection on US soil. Obviously Im against all foreign aid to israel or palestine as well as dual citizenship >no they don't. the subtle tricks of law do not change ones duties. obviously the law should be made to promote good conduct, but laws do not define good conduct. >>42972 bkuz currant thong discussion breads get derezzzed faster than they can install the new chip in my head

>>42973 >I know prior to this present conflict israel wasn't exactly kind and generous to the Palestinians but they weren't as violent either You've already demonstrated that you don't know anything about the conflict or the history of it. >The situation with a murderer hiding in Palestine is a bit different than one hiding in I don't know, Israel, which actually will punish its own people for murdering mexicans under US protection on US soil. There are plenty jewish criminals hiding in Israel because they know they won't be deported. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-born-moldovan-oligarch-sentenced-in-absentia-to-15-years-over-1b-bank-theft/ Your assumption that Israel is just another responsible upstanding democratic nation state following the international rules based order is part of the brainwashing I wish you could break free from. >the subtle tricks of law do not change ones duties What you want the rules to be and what the rules actually are is two very different things. The police are not there to protect you and politicians are not there to serve you. The sooner you realize that the better.

>>42974 they've done it (at least arrested and imprisoned the guy) at least sometimes for the USA but thats what you get when you hold the purse strings I guess. Its not an assumption its a fact. If Moldova was a better country they would be able to force Israel to do it but because they're weak and insignificant they have to suck it because that's how the world works. Muh international law. >you've already demonstrated you know nothing about the conflict lelelel proximity breeds contempt what more is there to say. Back in Titus' day the big foreign empire was pushing the one way, now it pushes the other, each side delighted to use his convenient allies to screw over his old enemies. The UN was absolutely involved in the pullout, even if George VI was the nominal actor. You can't tell me that the British weren't keenly interested in the of the US/SR in 1947, the United States, and the Soviet Union both voted for a two state solution along with the bulk of the other UN countries and that is more or less what wound up happening. You can blame this on Britain if you want, and they deserve some blame, but they were under significant pressure to reduce the extent of their empire and they did so, not just in this case but in many others. >what you WUNT the rules to be and what the rules actually are sir you don't realize how cynical I am I am literally just an autist saying that if I was in charge of israel I would literally be killing every palestinian I could get my hands on right now if I thought I could get away with it and guess what it looks like they're getting away with it how about that.

>>42975 >You can't tell me that the British weren't keenly interested in the of the US/SR in 1947, the United States, and the Soviet Union both voted for a two state solution along with the bulk of the other UN countries and that is more or less what wound up happening. That's not what wound up happening. Again you have no idea what you're talking about. You're either too lazy to do the research or you have a learning disability if you did try to read something and this was your takeaway.

>>42967 >zero carbon Again with this weird idea. What relevance does it have to the discussion of whether wind turbines are a useful form of energy?

>>42969 >they let Palestine exist for a very long time How generous. >If in either of these cases the US had simply decided to exterminate the enemy people, there's a good chance those wars would have come out very differently They pretty much did decide to exterminate the Vietnamese and Cambodians, or at least not care about civilian deaths, and it didn't work. >I dont get the impression that Israel is actually trying to exterminate the Palestinians You should read some of the things their generals and heads of state are saying. >Different situation. My country police have a duty to the protection of my countrymen So you think ethical treatment is dependent on nationality. This is essentially disgusting to me. >but such things as international law are mostly a joke. They are routinely ignored, but that doesn't mean they don't represent a consensus on how countries ought to act.

>>42978 >They pretty much did decide to exterminate the Vietnamese and Cambodians What sort of commie fifth column propaganda is this? They fought side by side with the Vietnamese population, at least the one who wanted to keep some individual freedoms and they bombed the ARMY of Camboge only because they helped Charlie with the Ho Chi Mihn trail inside Cambodia making any progress impossible. You could argue that they were not shy about collateral but then you hit two problems: first, the other side was even less shy about collateral and even had a policy of extermination of the families of every important member of the loyalist army and it seem that you don't have a problem with that, and second, the US wasn't shy about the lives of their own conscripted boys, so they gave as much care about the lives of the Viets than about the lives of Americans. >They are routinely ignored, but that doesn't mean they don't represent a consensus on how countries ought to act. Are you born yesterday? Those agreements only exist to serve temporary needs of the parties involved, not some grand ideal. Salt exist because the US and the Soviet didn't wanted to waste their economy on this race, it would have made smaller countries grow faster than them. Please please please don't get me started on the WTO. To everyone who think Israel only began to act like that recently: they invented the variety of terrorism on which you kill civilians to create a terror when Palestine was British. The only reason why Palestine isn't a functional state is because Israel bombed every single institutional building in Palestine and Bibi started the second intifada war himself. I recomand you to read Baba Mezia 24a and 114b, Sanhedrin 57a, Baba Kamma 113a, Yebamoth 98a, Jebamoth 94b, Soferim 15, Sanhedrin 74b and 107b and Shabbath 104b. There is a reason why Adrian did what he did.