SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
During the cold war, there was a clear narrative: an ideological opposition between the US and the Soviet Union. Moments of great tension were understood as episodes within that narrative. The closest we came to nuclear confrontation was the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the two countries seemed on the edge of war. But the crisis itself was finished inside a fortnight, and there was a wider framework to fall back on. The 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty calmed the waters.
Then, in the early 1980s the tough-talking but critically derided , Ronald Reagan was elected US president. He reignited the cold war rhetoric and began escalating the arms race, and there was an assumption – particularly in Europe – that nuclear destruction was creeping closer. But it was still within a recognisable context. That ended with the collapse of communism, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. For a while the world felt a much safer place than it had been.
But the cold war was replaced by uncertainty. And now the uncertainty is combined with the unpredictability of Donald Trump. The recent bombing raids in Syria and Afghanistan were isolated moments, without any sense of programme or continuity. Nor does there seem any logic to why North Korea should have suddenly become a pressing issue. Incidents that seem to arrive out of the blue can be much more frightening. We're probably not on the verge of nuclear war, but it's destabilising if we can't make sense of events.
Is the world more dangerous now than during the cold war?
[Related]: Nuclear war will ignite in May 2017, mystic Horacio Villegas says
What do you think ?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Sunday April 23 2017, @07:38AM (3 children)
In a nutshell: Globally a lot more stable, while locally still unstable, with a sprinkle of high-profile but low-risk factor: the international irresponsible non-state actor (Mexican mafias doing more than drug trade, ISIS, Al-quaeda...).
The high number of refugees may actually be a good symptom: Who gave a [bleep] about many of the local massacres in the past? People died right away or got trapped inside countries despite shitty situations, allowing everyone else to ignore them for years or decades. Feel good about some boat people rescued, let millions die quietly. A slap of refugees in your face is a good way to notice that while you have problems, you can't keep ignoring other who have bigger ones (often caused by you).
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday April 23 2017, @08:43AM (2 children)
"Caused by you".
Unless you voted for your bank to deal with arms, or for the rebuilding entities to profit from foreign destruction, it is not caused by you, and in fact the mainstream media who routinely assign responsibility to entire countries is no different from the nazis who killed 10 civilians for each german soldier. Collective responsibility is totalitarian and evil just like collective punishment. Do not fall for this perspective. You are responsible for your own shortcomings.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 23 2017, @10:06AM
When you chose your bank, did you some research on how much they are involved in such deals, and take that information into consideration when doing your choice? If you didn't (and most people didn't; I don't exclude myself here), then you do share some responsibility for it. Not much, mind you, but certainly a bit.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 24 2017, @04:15PM
> Unless you voted for [snip]
The beauty of democracy is that all people are responsible for the actions of their government, regardless of whether they voted for those particular guys or those who lost.