Analysis: Nuclear war would be more devastating for Earth’s climate than cold war predictions
Analysis: Nuclear war would be more devastating for Earth’s climate than cold war predictions
Professor Mark Maslin (UCL Geography) highlights in The Conversation research that used modern climate models to map the effects of a nuclear war, and which found the resulting nuclear winter would plunge the planet into a “nuclear little ice age” lasting thousands of years.
You're viewing a single thread.
Hopefully Russia ceases their invasion soon then. They could have ended it any time they wanted, but for some reason, they insist on keeping their "three-day, special military operation" going.
I'm rooting for peace. Hopefully, Russia comes around.
It's quite obvious that Russia is not going to just pack up and go home at this point. The only question here is whether the west would end the world in a nuclear holocaust if it can't have Ukraine in its sphere of influence.
That's an interesting way of framing Russia ending the world in a nuclear holocaust because Ukraine didn't want to be a part of Russia's sphere of influence.
It would be best for everyone if Russia would stop the escalation, and I hope they do. If not, we have to find a better solution to imperialism than appeasement, because that doesn't work long-term either.
The same way the US would end the world if Russia started building bases in Mexico. In fact, this exact scenario already happened during the Cuban missile crisis. Anybody who keeps peddling the notion that Russia should just accept NATO encroachment is deeply intellectually dishonest.
It's obvious to everyone with even a minimally functioning brain that Russia isn't just going to pack up and go home after nearly three years of war. Especially given that Russia is very obviously winning the war at this point. NATO has a choice to accept reality that they lost or to start a nuclear holocaust. It's pretty clear that there are plenty of imbeciles living in NATO countries who would prefer the latter.
Meanwhile, this whole narrative of appeasement is the height of bullshit. Everybody appeased the US and NATO when they invaded Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and countless other countries. The US currently occupies a larger percentage of Syria than Russia is of Ukraine. The appeasement just means that NATO has to accept that another country is doing what NATO does regularly.
"NATO encroachment" is a direct result of Russian aggression. If Russia had stayed out of Ukraine in 2014 then Ukraine would not have asked for NATO training assistance. If they had stayed out in 2022, Finland and Sweden would not be members.
What are you even talking about. This all started back in the 90s, and has been going on since. In fact, plenty of western experts have been warning about NATO expansion for many decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Anybody who pretends that this all started in 2014 is deeply intellectually dishonest.
You can't refute the argument so you just start yapping about some random opinions and move the goalposts to another continent. And then you talk about "intellectual dishonesty" lmao
I've literally refuted your argument by demonstrating that NATO expansion has been happening since the fall of USSR and that plenty of prominent people in the west have warned that it would culminate in a war. Nobody is moving any goal posts on you here. You're the one who can't refute basic facts of the situation, and having no integrity, you try to deflect from that. It's both pathetic and transparent. Good job outing yourself as a troll. Bye.
You clearly lack reading comprehension skills, because my argument had nothing to do with the timeline of NATO expansion
That's because your argument is a straw man that ignores context and history. Now run along and do your trolling elsewhere.
Yes, it did start in the 90s. With this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian–Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty
Now who violated the treaty?
Who’s being intellectually dishonest in this thread again?
The US doing a color revolution in Ukraine in 2014 was what started the civil war there last I checked. So, pretty clearly it was the west that violated the sovereignty of Ukraine by violently overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with literal fascists.
You are the one being intellectually dishonest in this thread.
Your logic is evading me. Russia is just doing a new three year war with whatever they want next and then again and again since it's working. I'm not in favor of nuclear war but if it ends my miserable life I'm all in.
Your logic is evading me. If you think Russia just has infinite capacity to do war without end then you really need to learn how economics, supply chains, and logistics work. If you want to end your miserable life then go sign up for the foreign legion in Ukraine and leave the rest of us alone. It's incredible to me how western parasites would rather end humanity than accept that they don't get to run the whole world.