Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday April 23 2017, @05:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the reality-and-perception dept.

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 ?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 23 2017, @10:41AM (4 children)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday April 23 2017, @10:41AM (#498266) Journal

    I thought I could trigger some thought process in your brain. Namely about the difference between "something happens" and "something might happen".

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 23 2017, @11:17AM (3 children)

    I thought I could trigger some thought process in your brain. Namely about the difference between "something happens" and "something might happen".

    Yup, and there could be seventeen rabid chipmunks with hatchets waiting outside my home to chop me into little bits too.
    Or I could walk out in the street and a 100Kg anvil (stamped with the ACME logo, of course) could fall out of the sky and crush me to death.
    Or I could walk into a market, then walk out, oblivious to the fact that masked gunmen are robbing the place, only to be dragged back inside and threatened with a gun (that actually happened to me in 1979)
    Or I could slip in my bathtub and fracture my skull and die right there.
    Ad inifinitum, ad nauseam.

    That and US$5 will get you a mediocre latte from Starbucks.

    Do you have some kind of point? Shit happens. There is no such thing as perfect safety. You can either deal with reality or hide under your bed until you die.

    If you're wetting your trousers because some pissant "journalist" blathers on with a bunch of alarmist, hand-wavy bullshit, that's your problem.

    As for me, I pay attention to what's going on around me. I can see that the trends and data point toward a more peaceful near future, not a more violent one.

    I could be wrong. That's unlikely, but it's possible. However, until someone provides actual evidence to the contrary (which neither you nor that jackass from the Guardian did), I'm going with actual facts and actual data.

    Go find some dark corner to cower in and stop bothering me.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 23 2017, @11:34AM (2 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday April 23 2017, @11:34AM (#498281) Journal

      Do you have some kind of point?

      Yes. Namely that your argument was flawed. And note that a flawed argument remains a flawed argument even if its conclusion happened to be true.

      I didn't do a detailed analysis whether the world now is safer than during cold war or not.Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (indeed, "during cold war" is a damned long period, so the question isn't even very well defined to begin with). But your argument that the world must currently be safer because it currently is more peaceful is flawed. That, and only that, is my point.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 23 2017, @12:22PM (1 child)

        But your argument that the world must currently be safer because it currently is more peaceful is flawed. That, and only that, is my point.

        And I disagree with what you call "your point." In fact, your assumption is flat wrong.

        If there are fewer (i.e., murders or battle deaths per 100,000) intentional deaths than there were ten years ago, end even fewer than there were 30 years ago, and even fewer than there were 50 years ago, and even fewer than that compared to 100 years ago, and an order of magnitude fewer than 300 years ago, etc., etc., etc., then I'd most certainly say we were safer. Not only that, the data strongly implies this trend will continue.

        Here, I'll say it again in simpler terms so you'll be sure to understand: A smaller proportion of us humans (this is true even if you include all the wars of the 20th and 21 centuries) suffer intentional death than at any time in history. That trend has continued through the latter half of the twentieth century, and accelerated in the twenty-first century. If you're less likely to be murdered where you live or killed in a war, then you are safer. Get it now?

        I didn't do a detailed analysis whether the world now is safer than during cold war or not

        Fortunately, others have done so [ourworldindata.org] for us [ourworldindata.org]. Which was linked in my original post [soylentnews.org]. If you'd bothered to check, you'll see that violence of all kinds has been decreasing, not for decades, not for centuries, but for millenia. The data and trends are clear.

        Why that is so is a rather more complicated question. And more interesting than this discussion, since you appear to have nothing of value to add.

        I use actual data, logic and reasoning to arrive at my conclusions.

        What is it that you use to arrive at yours? Your feelings? The consensus of you and your mates down the pub after a few pints? Media scare pieces?

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23 2017, @03:40PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23 2017, @03:40PM (#498362)

          Climate hysteria is apparently based on pascal's wager...