World War Three

[crazy canuck]

NATO has done the opposite - it has expressly said any attack on NATO will be disastrous for Russia.  But in the same breath has said that NATO is only providing support to Ukraine but not intervening. 

The logic is that it draws a clear line in the sand over which Putin cannot cross without retaliation from NATO - but definitely leaves the door open for Russia to do its worst in Ukraine.

[Jacob]

I mean given the poor performance of the Russian army it starts to call into question how well maintained their strategic forces are so maybe it proves that, but little else.

Yeah, I take it as a given that a bunch of Russia's nukes are going to fail. So, like, some of the West will probably survive in a total exchange... not that that makes it worthwhile.

[Josquius]

The climate is in such a fragile place at the moment that I don't think it'll take many nukes to push it over the edge.

And then China owns whatever is left over in a glorious plastic dystopia.

[Maladict]

The climate is in such a fragile place at the moment that I don't think it'll take many nukes to push it over the edge.

But many nukes will solve global warming.

[PJL]

The climate is in such a fragile place at the moment that I don't think it'll take many nukes to push it over the edge.

But many nukes will solve global warming.

No, it won't. It will stop global warming for a few years, then accelerate it due to the loss of foliage caused by all the nuclear bombs.

[crazy canuck]

But at least non of us will be around to witness that end result...  oh wait

[Eddie Teach]

But at least non of us will be around to witness that end result...  oh wait

I don't see the down side.

[viper37]

I think the risk of a nuclear exchange is greater than WWIII.

I don't think Russia vs the West = a World War, unless at least China and possibly several other countries are involved as well.

But there's real risk that Putin kicks off a nuclear exchange in this.

Belarus and Kazakhstan woud join, China would at least be an agressive neutral.  If China joins, NK might join as well.

[crazy canuck]

But at least non of us will be around to witness that end result...  oh wait

I don't see the down side.

I prefer not to see my family die in a nuclear winter in the next couple of years.  YMMV

[viper37]

But at least non of us will be around to witness that end result...  oh wait

I don't see the down side.

I prefer not to see my family die in a nuclear winter in the next couple of years.  YMMV

You might not see them, you might die first...

[crazy canuck]

But at least non of us will be around to witness that end result...  oh wait

I don't see the down side.

I prefer not to see my family die in a nuclear winter in the next couple of years.  YMMV

You might not see them, you might die first...

Your are right, I didn't consider the more positive outcome.

[viper37]

But at least non of us will be around to witness that end result...  oh wait

I don't see the down side.

I prefer not to see my family die in a nuclear winter in the next couple of years.  YMMV

You might not see them, you might die first...

Your are right, I didn't consider the more positive outcome.

Glad to be of use.

[Berkut]

Sam Harris had a great guest on talking about the impact of the Ukraine war long term.

He mentioned how unfortunate it is that Putin is going to force a lot of countries to ramp up defense spending.

Not because they shouldn't - the should for sure - but because at the end of the day, spending on defense is such a waste of resources. And the world is realizing that history has not ended, and the ability to defend yourself against aggressors is still quite necessary.

Defense spending as a percentage of a nations budget has historically been radically higher then it has in the post WW2 era. Indeed, one could argue that defense spending (and offense spending, for that matter) was the primary purpose of national governments for most of human history where there was such a thing as a "nation".

It's a little sad that we have to, in some fashion, go back to building tools to kill each other instead of investing in more and better health care.

To say nothing of what all that spending is going to do in regards to the true primary global concern - climate change. This will (and has) taken away not just resources from that problem, but more importantly perhaps, attention.

[The Brain]

If we're lucky it will make people focus more on what's important for a state to do, and what is less important and can be ditched.

[grumbler]

The biggest reason why defense spending as a percentage of government revenue has gone down is that government revenue has shot up in the post-WW2 era.  In 1913, the UK was spending 2.9% of GNP on defense; in 1976, 4.4%.  In 2000, 2.4%.  A drop, but not a huge one from 1914 and a big one from pre-end-of-Cold-War.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/military-expenditure-as-a-share-of-gdp-long