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This discussion has been archived.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 HiThere on Sunday April 23 2017, @06:45PM (1 child)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 23 2017, @06:45PM (#498438) Journal

    I put the worst case scenario as considerably worse than you do, but I agree that's unlikely to cause a major war. Japan might be destroyed, and the world economy might collapse. China would hardly be "castrated". They'd likely demand (and get) major damage concessions. The US might lose every ally that it has. Even Canada and Mexico might break off relations. (This is a bit unlikely, but it depends on how the rest of the world reacts.) China, Russia, and probably the EU would find lots of new devoted friends.

    This isn't like right after WWII. People have stopped looking at the US as "the good guys". Many people are already looking for a good excuse to distance themselves.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23 2017, @07:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23 2017, @07:34PM (#498474)

    The financial markets will go Code Blue for awhile, but the greater economy will be just fine.

    Japan destroyed? Unlikely. Even if Kimmy-poo could get his whole miniscule arsenal of low-yield junk delivered to the Japanese home islands, and they all actually worked, Japan would suffer terribly but certainly survive.

    As far as the US's reputation afterward, it's hard to imagine it being much worse, and it would put a lot of wannabes on short notice.

    That said, I'm betting on China just slowly strangling the Kimster economically and engineering a safer, saner puppet regime. China wants a weak, divided peninsula.