Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[The Brain]

People are more resilient that they are given credit for.  They adjust to new realities very quickly if they have to.  Those adjustments are not "free", though, so it's not necessarily a bad thing to lack those adjustments until they become necessary.

You're killing me, DG!

[Martinus]

People are more resilient that they are given credit for.  They adjust to new realities very quickly if they have to.  Those adjustments are not "free", though, so it's not necessarily a bad thing to lack those adjustments until they become necessary.

You're killing me, DG!

[Martinus]

So, who wins the nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO?

Hint: it starts with "C".

[Jacob]

So, who wins the nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO?

Hint: it starts with "C".

Connecticut?

[CountDeMoney]

Fuck, if Russia and the US sent some their way in the middle of it all, that would be the only positive out of the whole fucking thing.

Unless you meant Cameroon, and fuck them too.

[Martinus]

 

[frunk]

Connecticut?

Whoohoo!  NWO!

[DGuller]

People are more resilient that they are given credit for.  They adjust to new realities very quickly if they have to.  Those adjustments are not "free", though, so it's not necessarily a bad thing to lack those adjustments until they become necessary.

You're killing me, DG!

[derspiess]

Yeah, the backlash against nukes has created this idea that everyone will die if they are used.  Everyone chortled about the "Duck and cover" exercises, when in fact that is very good advice.  Sure it may not save you if you are in a wooden house at ground zero, but a concrete building 10 miles away, that could save your life. 

I never understood the backlash against that.  Sure, it's gonna be a shitty day even if you survive the blast, but wouldn't you want to at least make the effort?

Maybe it was just baby boomer contrarianism.

[CountDeMoney]

You can't exercise your constitutional right to hug bears with nuclear arms, or something.

[Martinus]

You can't exercise your constitutional right to hug bears with nuclear arms, or something.

That's a Molotov cocktail of a metaphore.

[Malthus]

Yeah, the backlash against nukes has created this idea that everyone will die if they are used.  Everyone chortled about the "Duck and cover" exercises, when in fact that is very good advice.  Sure it may not save you if you are in a wooden house at ground zero, but a concrete building 10 miles away, that could save your life. 

I never understood the backlash against that.  Sure, it's gonna be a shitty day even if you survive the blast, but wouldn't you want to at least make the effort?

Maybe it was just baby boomer contrarianism.

You don't understand how treating a probable civilization-ending event with a TV PSA with a cartoon turtle and a catchy jingle could be mock-worthy? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

The whole point of this is spelled out: nuclear war is just another danger, like fire is a danger. If we are prepared, it isn't so bad. Some windows may be knocked out, though.

Sure, it is understandable to have civil-defence preparations even for the worst, but the effort looks hilariously tone-deaf in its efforts to spare kiddies the horrors. 

[derspiess]

You don't understand how treating a probable civilization-ending event with a TV PSA with a cartoon turtle and a catchy jingle could be mock-worthy? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

It was a film that was viewed by kids in school.  I don't believe it was shown on TV.  Anyway sure, we can (and do) mock everything from our childhood.  I just think it's odd that this one gets singled out so often.  The most common knock I hear on it is that "you're just gonna get vaporized anyway so why bother" which is not necessarily true as Raz pointed out.

The whole point of this is spelled out: nuclear war is just another danger, like fire is a danger. If we are prepared, it isn't so bad. Some windows may be knocked out, though.

Well, until they're old enough to fully understand nuclear bombs, war, etc. I think that's probably the best approach.  What would you do differently in the context of the Cold War?  Scare the shit out of 2nd graders?  Or just avoid the issue entirely?

Sure, it is understandable to have civil-defence preparations even for the worst, but the effort looks hilariously tone-deaf in its efforts to spare kiddies the horrors. 

Interesting.  The other contrarian angle I've heard is that it's intended to scare children and somehow turn them into McCarthyites.

[frunk]

I looked at one of those maps that shows the area of effect for nuclear weapons over some particular point.

Oddly enough, what I got out of that is that the area of effect is not nearly as large as I expected.

I think culturally we imagine nuclear weapons as being these crazy huge weapons that take out entire cities, but they are not of course. It takes quite a few, for example, to really destroy NYC.

I think it's instructive to compare it to conventional explosives.  For the same weight a small nuclear bomb is about 40,000 times more powerful than a conventional bomb.  It's a serious escalation in power, even if it doesn't manage to destroy a whole city all by itself.

[The Brain]

Telling kids how they should act to minimize the effects of dangers seems reasonable to me. Showing them all the gory details of said dangers seems unnecessary to me.