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 PiMuNu on Sunday April 23 2017, @09:31AM (3 children)
I think TFA is arguing that there is a larger risk of World War 3. World War 3 would skew your statistics heavily against the world being safer. So while we may be safer assuming peace continues, we are overall less safe.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 23 2017, @10:12AM (2 children)
I think TFA is arguing that there is a larger risk of World War 3. World War 3 would skew your statistics heavily against the world being safer. So while we may be safer assuming peace continues, we are overall less safe.
I went and read the largely logic, data and fact-free TFA [theguardian.com], and I stand by my statement that Betteridge's Law is in full effect here.
The headline (and nothing in TFA contradicts the claim there) says:
Is the World More Dangerous Now than During the Cold War?
No. It is not. It might be in the future, but right now this planet is more peaceful and prosperous than it ever has been. Ever.
The risk of a nuclear exchange right isn't any higher now than at any time since 1945. In fact, it's less likely than pretty much any time since 1945.
It is true that Kim Jong-moron is rattling sabers, and he might do something incredibly stupid. But that's not incredibly likely, as China is, for the most part, pulling his strings.
The risk that Russia, China or the U.S. would launch nuclear weapons is lower than ever, even with "tensions" rising. All the adults know that it's a lose-lose for everyone if that happens.
If you want to be afraid of an imminent nuclear war, be my guest. You'd be wrong to do do so, but who am I to try to disabuse you of your delusions?
So knock yourself out. Maybe you can take to the streets with a big placard [kinja-img.com] or something.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 23 2017, @10:44AM (1 child)
It is more dangerous now if and only if the probability of something bad happening in the near future is higher. Danger is without exception about something that has not yet happened.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 23 2017, @11:25AM
It is more dangerous now if and only if the probability of something bad happening in the near future is higher. Danger is without exception about something that has not yet happened.
The data (and factual events in recent history) point to the probability being lower.
Bad things have always happened. Bad things will always happen. However, bad things are happening less frequently and have been, with minor tics in the trend lines for millenia.
Now go and read your Malthus [wikipedia.org] and mumble to yourself about how we're all doomed. I'm not interested.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr