Nuclear disaster inevitable

[Ka-El]

Why does nationalism, defined as this: "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." always get smeared and pushed as the cause for every bad scenario or doomsday event?

synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality; More.

Maybe you could do some more reading on the subject; get past the Wikipedia definitions and synoyms. I am a proud Canadian – proud of what this country offers, and proud of what it (most of us) stands for. I believe in nation-building for the self-interests of our country, even consider myself patriotic, but none of this means that I "identify with the interests of our country to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations". I recognize the world is evolving, and nations that do not evolve along with it will be ultimately left behind. We have to learn how to share and grow together on this planet,

It all depends on how simplistically you want to define nationalism and on how deeply you want to look into it (like populism). Gwynne Dyer is a renown and established commentator on geo-politics and would be one of the best first sources to go to if you really do want to know more about the subject. Here’s a couple of links I quickly found if you want to get started …

The future of nationalism: Gwynne Dyer on Trump, the media, and what our collective future holds
https://ufvcascade.ca/the-future-of-nat ... ure-holds/

An Excess of Nationalism

http://gwynnedyer.com/2004/excess-of-nationalism/

Remember, those who want to know truth must first seek knowledge.

[Ka-El]

Too bad a lot of this information is actually propaganda.

Gwynne Dyer? Propaganda? Oh dear.

I stopped reading the first link here:

Well, we’re all familiar with another poster who always “stops reading when …” I know the Trump apologists hate seeing their guy exposed but you might as well get used to that as it is going to get a lot worse. That being said, while we do associate Trump with the negative impacts of nationalism, if that is a sore spot for you I’d encourage you to forget Trump and just examine the issue itself. There is still plenty of information and discussion that can be reviewed on the subject on the perils of nationalism without even having to mention Donald Trump (again, highly encourage you to read some Dyer). Again, it is always a choice. You can decide to continue to stop reading when you don’t agree with something or find it uncomfortable to consider, or you can do what critical and objective thinkers do and read from all sources. Back tomorrow.

[Ka-El]

I don't care about any politician being called out for wrong doings, in fact I think its great, keep digging. I just find after doing a bit of my own digging, that a lot of the apparent wrong doings by trump seem to be manufactured sensationalism to stir up viewership for a dying medium. That or small issues blown way out of proportion for the same purpose. I don't like everything about him, not by a long shot, nore do I like all of the things he says, but I find it refreshing that he says these things openly and acknowledges them for the most part and brushes them off rather than trying to cover it up. All politicians seem to be sketchy in some way, at least he is brash and open about it. You sorta know what you are getting.

I don't think always going back to the hitler argument is really valid either, that's the only other big bad nationalist I've ever heard of. I'm sure there are examples of other dictators who rose to power on the promise of nationalism / populism, but that was merely a trojan horse. I will say though, anything can be taken too far. I can see how nationalism if taken way, way too far can be a bad thing. You don't need to completely shut out other countries or peoples or cultures to the point of detriment to be a nationalist or populist. The main idea is putting you and yours first. When you do that, which is essentially helping yourself.. that will allow you to be in a better position to help others, will it not? You must take care of the issues within your own country before even thinking of others in my opinion. An individual must do the same, help yourself before you help others.. Otherwise how the hell do you expect to be able to even do so? If all the big ticket issues you need to deal with are dealt with or being dealt with then sure, go ahead and help others.. That's great. Canada and Canadian citizens first.

Trump is an imbecile who represents a clear and present danger, not only in terms of geopolitical relationships and stability but even for some semblance of economic and political stability at home. No one has to blow any issues out of proportion, and no one has to create any fake news to embarrass him. There is a big difference between saying things openly and saying things without thought. He just does his thing, gets recorded doing it, and then tries to call it “fake news” when he realizes what an asshat he just made himself look like. The Americans can’t get rid of Trump fast enough. This presidency is something they will want to put behind them (George Jr is just happy that Trump has trumped his presidency for buffoonery).

But bringing the discussion back to nationalism (and populism), you’ve repeated an interesting point in trying to limit the meaning of the concepts to their basic definitions. By those standards I think a lot of people here would agree these things sound great. Who wouldn’t want everyone to have some national pride and have our politicians develop policies that would benefit our own country first? Who wouldn’t be inclined to support a politician or political party that promises to speak for “ordinary people”? The problem is these ideas always get high-jacked by extremists and become something more or different from their most simplistic definition. Historical examples of extremist nationalism include Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and the Empire of Japan at that time. More recent examples would include Serbia and Croatia. Some would suggest left to run its course nationalism will always become problematic.

Nationalism is an inherently expansionist and destructive force

https://paperap.com/paper-on-nationalis ... ive-force/

Populism as defined as “a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups” sounds very appealing as well. Unfortunately, as suggested, these movements can also get high-jacked. For example, I really don’t think your average ordinary Canadian is a xenophobic racist, and I’d like to think that holds true for Americans as well. Of course, this is not to say all populists are xenophobic racists, but it is telling how excited these groups get in supporting populist politicians. Also …

The problem with populism

Populist political regimes usually end badly, sometimes in violence, sometimes with a whimper, nearly always in economic calamity and social division, exactly what they purportedly set out to eliminate. The problem with populism is not that it promotes ideas with which the elites disagree or to which they have become unresponsive. This can be productive in a normal, competitive process on which democracy depends. Populism’s flaw is partly in method, given that populist politicians make claim to represent virtue in a struggle against a tainted elite; that the ends thus justify the means.
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article ... -populism/

The Problem with ‘Populism’

http://criticallegalthinking.com/2018/1 ... -populism/

The problem with populism

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ide-europe

The problem with populism

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1821140/6- ... -populism/

I suppose the greatest danger of both these concepts (populism and nationalism) is how they can, and so often do lead to an “us versus them” mentality. It is the extremists on either side who want to high-jack these movements for their own agenda, most often with destructive consequences – at the least, contributing to fragmentation and divisiveness in our societies. Other writers will offer more, but I really have to get on to other things. But if you’re interested in pursuing the topic of nationalism and how it relates to the topic of this thread;

Nationalism is the process in which a group of people feel a strong emotional bond to their country and this will often cause them to believe (rightly or wrongly) that the life they lead in their country is substantially better than other countries.

So far so innocent, but this patriotic feeling can be turned into a hatred of people who are seen to be against our otherwise perfect nation.

Nationalism has been closely associated with the most destructive wars of human history; the revisionist states responsible for initiating both the First and the Second World Wars have historically been examined as the epitome of the dangers of nationalism.

https://www.e-ir.info/2012/06/19/how-si ... se-of-war/

Nationalism and war
https://stateofnationalism.eu/article/n ... m-and-war/

[Ka-El]

Wouldn't that be Ultranationalism? Or again, extreme nationalism? Nationalism does not have to be extreme or push for armed conflict, if it does then it is extreme, or ultranationalism.

I’m not going to respond separately to every point made in your post (there are other threads to discuss the scam Trump pulled over his base). Whatever you want to call these ideas (extreme nationalism, extreme populism) the point I had made was that these ideologies are getting high-jacked for that exact reason, to satiate extremist interests. In addition, and as you’ve noted yourself, both nationalism and populism are only part of a more complex story and none of this operates in a vacuum. Take a look at how polarized our societies are becoming, and this has been developing over some time. The rise of both nationalism and populism in an environment already divided only helps to push these ideas further into the realm of “us vs them”, and as we’ve seen in Europe and the United states (and to some extent even in Canada sadly) provides permission and validation for extremists and extremist groups to become more active and vocal, and sometimes even violent.

Those of us who continue to try and promote centrist thinking get frustrated because the response to everything from the extreme right or left is to deflect or defend instead of trying to understand. As I’ve said before, a bit of nationalism and/or a bit of populism could be a good thing. Who wouldn’t want to promote some national pride, and who wouldn’t want to think our politicians were speaking and working for “ordinary people”? The problem, as also already noted, is that these ideas get high-jacked and then used by extremists to promote their own agenda under the pretext they are representing ordinary people while really only representing their own self-interests - and yes, populism has been associated with xenophobia and racism.

Xenophobia, racism and populist nationalism

http://imbisaweb.com/?p=2028

even a YouTube video …

Racism, Xenophobia, and Populism: The Miseducation of the Public

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox9cp87vvfg

Anyways, this thread is about the inevitability of nuclear war, and I would argue both nationalism and populism will play a part. We know that both Kim and Putin have their own agenda they are not openly sharing, and with someone as unbalanced and unstable as Trump in the White House (he's thinking an arms race is a good thing; and so is Putin) these are especially precarious times we live in. Maybe we could revisit this article and get back to the topic at hand …

With Kim Jong and Putin both playing Trump from opposing flanks (Kim Jong playing Trump into believing him and Putin getting an excuse to be more open about an arms race), this article is timely …

What can we do to prevent nuclear war?

We are three quarters of a century into the nuclear age. Have we yet learned how to live with nuclear weapons? It seems not. Some take heart from the fact that, after the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has been no nuclear war. They say, rightly, it would be suicide for the U.S. and Russia to unleash their nuclear weapons.

But we must ask ourselves whether the contending powers actually accept this. If they do not, nuclear deterrence is unstable.

Consider the evidence. It is a dubious form of acceptance of a condition of stable deterrence that leads the opponents to engage in an arms race costing a trillion dollars. Yet that is what they are doing.

In Russian President Putin’s case the big ticket items include new torpedoes capable of making the eastern United States uninhabitable. U.S. President Trump is planning instead space-based lasers, able to burn up incoming missiles.

Why is it so hard to distinguish the supposed equilibrium of deterrence from its opposite, an uncontrolled arms race? The latter description seems more apt.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/wha ... &ocid=iehp

[Ka-El]

Russia Could Hit U.S. Commands in Five Minutes

A retired Soviet and Russian admiral has claimed that Moscow's new naval hypersonic missiles could hit U.S. military positions within minutes.

Vsevolov Khmyrov, a retired rear admiral who was awarded the Hero of Russia honor and commanded a submarine squadron before leaving the service in 2002, told local media that the White House's decision to exit the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty indicated the U.S. was seeking to deploy new missiles across Europe. Such weapons "from command centers on the territory of the American continent," he said, according to the state-run Tass Russian News Agency.

Khmyrov then predicted that the new 3M22 Tsirkon hypersonic cruise missile would not only be used to target U.S. systems in Europe "but will also ensure the capability to strike key control systems—command centers." He projected a Russian vessel 500 kilometers [roughly 311 miles] from shore could hit a target a further 500 kilometers inland within five minutes.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/rus ... &ocid=iehp

Nothing like a good old arms race to stir up national pride.

[techrtr]

I think it's going to happen. There was a refreshing decade and a half after the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union when people got a break from worrying about nuclear war. Now, nationalism is on the rise. Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union (eg., snatching pieces of the Ukraine). China is getting ready to take over Asia (eg building artificial islands/naval bases). You have a madman in North Korea with nuclear missiles that he apparently isn't afraid to use. You have an equally mad man in the Whitehouse. You have really scary people in places like Iran who will soon have nuclear weapons that they will use against Israel (and are protected by Russia).

Sad thing is, my 16 year thinks a nuclear war would be a good thing because we've f#$%^@ everything up so bad, she thinks wiping out the human race would be a good thing.

[Silverstarqueen]

I think B.c. will have a major earthquake before a nuclear blast.
But no reason why we couldn't have both (not likely at the same time tho).
So while you are building nuclear shelter, please be sure that it will survive an earthquake or it will all be for nought.

[Urban Cowboy]

Who'd want to survive a global nuclear war?

What do they plan to breath, eat, and drink, after everything has been contaminated?

Best thing that could happen to a person is to be at ground zero.

I'm with LTD on this one.

[Poindexter]

I have to believe that nuclear war is even too stupid for man to unleash however poor planning and corruption leading to a nuclear catastrophe does sit squarely in our wheel house.

America's Fukushima?

snip

Today, it is not a Soviet missile that threatens this once-pristine high desert. If disaster strikes Richland, it will be because the federal government (namely, the Department of Energy) allowed 56 million gallons of radioactive waste to fester in this sandy soil, where some say it is rife for an explosion. And, critics charge, the DOE has watched its prime contractor on the site, Bechtel, grossly overcharge the American public for a waste-treatment plant so poorly built that, once it's finished (if it ever gets finished), feeding nuclear material through it could cause a catastrophe.

snip

https://www.newsweek.com/2013/11/22/ame ... 43996.html

[Poindexter]

That's a really good article.
Option 1...send the stuff into the sun. Too dangerous, as in what about a launch failure? And too expensive...thousands per kilo.
Option 2 and the only real one...long term geologic storage 4 miles under ground. Perhaps Canada could make big $$$ by offering waste disposal in the Canadian shield.

We can't count on the Americans to manage it properly so might as well make some money doing it correctly.

[Silverstarqueen]

We might not have to wait for nuclear war, Russsia or some other country could just let loose a nuclear missile by mistake and blow up the wrong city, starting a conflaggeration. Now possibly the worst nuclear disaster since Chernoble:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 55071.html

If smoke from wildfires in Siberia can reach B.C. via the Bering sea, why not radioactive fallout from rogue nuclear missile blast?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/smoke-fro ... -1.4535636

[Queen K]

<snip>

Sad thing is, my 16 year thinks a nuclear war would be a good thing because we've f#$%^@ everything up so bad, she thinks wiping out the human race would be a good thing.

I see this sentiment all the time on facebook comment sections:

"When is this killer virus supposed to arrive and wipe us all out"?
"Too bad that city killing meteorite didn't hit."
"De-populate NOW!"

I feel so bad for kids these days. This is really how they are thinking. That a nuclear war would do us good.

[Silverstarqueen]

Well I think a nuclear bomb could be quite devastating, imagine this falling on Vancouver, with 2 million people in the immediate vicinity:

"The AsapSCIENCE video considers a 1 megaton bomb, which is 80 times larger than the bomb detonated over Hiroshima, but much smaller than many modern nuclear weapons (more on that later).
For a bomb that size, people up to 21 km (13 miles) away would experience flash blindness on a clear day, and people up to 85 km (52.8 miles) away would be temporarily blinded on a clear night.
Heat is an issue for those closer to the blast. Mild, first degree burns can occur up to 11 km (6.8 miles) away, and third degree burns - the kind that destroy and blister skin tissue - could affect anyone up to 8 km (5 miles) away.
Third degree burns that cover more than 24 percent of the body will likely be fatal if people don't receive medical care immediately.
Those distances are variable, depending not just on the weather, but also on what you're wearing - white clothes can reflect some of the energy of a blast, while darker clothes will absorb it.
That's unlikely to make much difference for those unfortunate enough to be at the centre of the explosion, though.
The temperatures near the site of the bomb blast during the Hiroshima explosion were estimated to be 300,000 degrees Celsius (540,000 degrees Fahrenheit) - which is 300 times hotter than the temperature bodies are cremated at, so humans were almost instantly reduced to their most basic minerals.
But for those slightly further away from the centre of the blast, that's not what's most likely to kill you.
, most of the energy released in a nuclear explosion is in the blast, which drives air away from the site of the explosion, creating sudden changes in air pressure that can crush objects and knock down buildings.

Within a 6-km (3.7-mile) radius of a 1-megaton bomb, blast waves will produce 180 tonnes of force on the walls of all two-storey buildings, and wind speeds of 255 km/h (158 mph).
In a 1-km (0.6-mile) radius, the peak pressure is four times that amount, and wind speeds can reach 756 km/h (470 mph).
Technically, humans can withstand that much pressure, but most people would be killed by falling buildings.

If you somehow survive all of that, there's still the radiation poisoning to deal with - and the nuclear fallout.

the ongoing effects on the planet of that fallout are longer-lasting than you might expect.

Again, all of this is hypothetical, there are international treaties in place to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, so we hope you never need to know any of this information for real.

But before we let you go, we should touch on the fact that 1 megaton bombs are barely the standard these days - the largest nuclear weapon ever tested is the 50 megaton Tsar bomb that was dropped on an isolated island in Russia, and released roughly the energy of 3,333 Hiroshima bombs combined.

[t76turbo]

I’m starting my bombshellter/fallout hideout tomorrow. Not even sure if I can fall asleep right now, maybe just go start digging in the backyard tonight. Neighbers already think I’m nuts, so might as well start with the entertainment...

I’m probably more concerned about a power plant meltdown, like Japan and Chernobyl. I still remember the Chernobyl disaster. Was living in Germany at the time, people where scared. Many outdoor activities were asked to be halted. Wasn’t fun yet about 1500km away. Sounds far but not far enough! That’s from here to Fort Nelson or just short of Regina. And directly in the path of
the fallout cloud.

Btw everyone should watch the 2019 miniseries CHERNOBYL, fantastic show!

[t76turbo]

And now just heard on the news that the Russians had a failed missile test last night in the north that released radioactive matter.