Nuclear War

Read Navigator's book, How To Prepare For The Coming Storms,
for valuable detailed information on what what's coming.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/coming-storms-preparation
tim
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Nuclear War

Post by tim »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAfeYMONj9E
The Coming War on China, from award winning journalist John Pilger, reveals what the news doesn’t – that the world’s greatest military power, the United States, and the world’s second economic power, China, both nuclear-armed, may well be on the road to war.

Nuclear war is not only imaginable, but planned. The greatest build-up of NATO military forces since the Second World War is under way on the western borders of Russia. On the other side of the world, the rise of China is viewed in Washington as a threat to American dominance.

To counter this, President Obama announced a ‘pivot to Asia’, which meant that almost two-thirds of all US naval forces would be transferred to Asia and the Pacific, their weapons aimed at China. A policy which has been taken up by his successor Donald Trump, who during his election campaign said “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country and that’s what they’re doing”.

Filmed on five possible front-lines across Asia and the Pacific over two years, the story is told in chapters that connect a secret and ‘forgotten’ past to the rapacious actions of great power today and to a resistance, of which little is known in the West.
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; - Exodus 20:5

FullMoon
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:55 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by FullMoon »

Tim, very interesting. Thanks for your contributions. Always worth it

spottybrowncow
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:06 am

Re: Nuclear War

Post by spottybrowncow »

tim wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:16 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAfeYMONj9E
I sat through the entire thing, and all I can say is it's one of the most poorly made propaganda films I've ever seen.

FullMoon
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:55 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by FullMoon »

spottybrowncow wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:22 am
tim wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:16 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAfeYMONj9E
I sat through the entire thing, and all I can say is it's one of the most poorly made propaganda films I've ever seen.
I made it halfway through. And yet I got something out of it. People survived what we maybe have to experience.
Yes, propaganda heavy. But you made it through. If you can debunk any of the evidence or claims then you will be providing something of merit.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 2935
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by Cool Breeze »

spottybrowncow wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:22 am
tim wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:16 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAfeYMONj9E
I sat through the entire thing, and all I can say is it's one of the most poorly made propaganda films I've ever seen.
Now you're realizing why I am generally the voice of reason around here, even though I accept all probabilities (unlike most of the rest).

Notice how funny it is that if war doesn't come, "it's coming, it's a guarantee I just don't know when" is the same as "Bitcoin will go to zero, I just don't know when - but trust me"

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Nuclear War

Post by John »

** 10-Feb-2021 World View: I don't know when -- but trust the Voice of Reason
Cool Breeze wrote:
Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:11 pm
> Now you're realizing why I am generally the voice of reason around
> here, even though I accept all probabilities (unlike most of the
> rest).

> Notice how funny it is that if war doesn't come, "it's coming,
> it's a guarantee I just don't know when" is the same as "Bitcoin
> will go to zero, I just don't know when - but trust me"
Ah yes, the Voice of Reason. It's so nice to have you here, since we
know that you would never fall into logical traps like the rest of us
do. After all, you're the voice of reason, so you can do so much
better than the rest of us at being reasonable.

So let's turn this around, and look at some of your own core beliefs,
namely your devout Christian religious beliefs.

Let's start with the simplest one -- the prediction about Jesus'
Second Coming. We know from the Bible that Jesus expected to return
soon, at least within the lives of his apostles. So he was wrong
about that. So why should we believe he's ever coming back? In my
mind, I can hear you say, "He's coming -- it's a guarantee, I just
don't know wen -- but trust me!"

Well that's not very convincing. I've been aware in my life of two or
three groups predicting the Second Coming on a specified date. That
was the stuff of Leon Festinger's research on cognitive dissonance.

By the way, do you belong to a group that has set a date for the
Second Coming? If you have, then please let us know, so we can mock
you when the date passes.

A good choice for you would be 2032, which would be 2000 years after
the crucifixion, so highly symbolic. And it would have the additional
advantage of being in the same time frame as AOC's prediction of the
end of life on earth because of climate change, so you and she can go
wait on a mountaintop together.

Or are you saying that you guarantee he's coming, but you don't know
when, but he's coming, so trust you? Well, let's keep score. Jesus
was wrong about the date. Then it didn't occur in the 1st millennium
AD. It didn't occur in the 2nd millennium AD. And now we're in the
3rd millennium, with no Second Coming in sight. So it might not
happen until the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th millennium. So why even
worry about it? Let the computer overlords worry about it then.
That's what the Voice Of Reason would say.

So now let's take a more prosaic example -- death. We're all going to
die, though we usually don't know when, so perhaps it's best not to
worry about it.

I'm sure that you would say that even though you don't know when
you're going to die, it's important to live a good, holy life. But
why?

We know the phrase attributed to St. Augustine -- Please God, make me
chaste, but not just yet. So that's the philosophy that you can enjoy
wine, women and song as long as you want, but then when you think
you're about to die, you ask for forgiveness.

The ability to obtain forgiveness, even on your deathbed, for all past
sins is an essential part of any popular theology, because it's an
essential argument for getting people to convert to the religion and
put money in the collection bowl. If someone had committed so many
sins that he couldn't be forgiven, then why even bother to join the
religion? He's only going to join if he's going to be forgiven.

So, following your logic, someone could say, "I'm going to die -- it's
a guarantee, I just don't know when -- but trust me!" That person
could apply the St. Augustine Rule and enjoy wine, women and song
until just before death, and then ask for foregiveness on the
deathbed.

However, that's a bit of a roll of the dice. What if you get struck
by lightning, and don't have time to ask for foregiveness? That would
really suck.

The solution then is to commit suicide. The Bible does not forbid
suicide, but the Catholic religion does and makes it a Mortal Sin
(same as using a contraceptive), and other religions do so as well.
However, committing suicide has many advantages. You know your time
of death and you can control it, which is a good thing, so you can ask
for foregiveness.

That leaves only one unsolved problem -- if you ask for forgiveness
and then commit suicide, then you still have one unforgiven sin, the
suicide itself, at least in the Catholic religion and other religions
that make suicide a sin. I've actually provided a solution to this
dilemma last year in another thread. You do the following: Go up to
the roof of a 20 story building, and dive off the roof. On your way
down, pray to God and ask for forgiveness. By the time you go splat,
you'll die free from sin.

So you see, Mr. Voice of Reason Breeze, your beliefs suffer from the
precise lapses in logic and reason that you accuse in others.

Let's contrast the prediction of the Second Coming to the GD
prediction of WW III. Jesus was wrong about the date, and many
millenarianists have also been wrong, for 2,000 years. There is no
historical record on which to base a prediction for the Second Coming.
It may never happen, and by your logic, it won't.

But for WW III, there's an enormous amount of historical evidence. As
I've pointed out many times, in the last century there were two world
wars and numerous huge wars on every continent. In fact, in every
century for millennia, there have been huge wars in every region in
every country in every continent. So based on the historical record,
we can predict with certainty that there will be WW III, and by making
comparisons to the last century, we can arrive at reasonable estimates
as to when it will occur.

Higgenbotham
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by Higgenbotham »

John wrote:
Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:35 pm
** 10-Feb-2021 World View: I don't know when -- but trust the Voice of Reason
Cool Breeze wrote:
Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:11 pm
> Now you're realizing why I am generally the voice of reason around
> here, even though I accept all probabilities (unlike most of the rest).
Ah yes, the Voice of Reason. It's so nice to have you here...

I see many voices here that appear reasonable because they all have a plan of action for the coming crisis.

Tim has committed to a long term plan to work at a job in a remote area that nobody wants and to build a bunker so he can survive the coming crisis. Seems reasonable to me.

John has said that he doesn't want to survive the coming nuclear war so he will situate himself near ground zero of a probable nuclear blast and be vaporized. Seems reasonable to me.

The Voice of Reason does not have a plan that I am aware of, except to "accept all probabilities (unlike most of the rest)". So if I may ask, what does the Voice of Reason suggest besides being reasonable?

Hypothetically speaking, let's say that one person has as their top scenario an all-out nuclear war with 100% odds. Someone else also has that as their top scenario, but that person wants to be "reasonable" and put the odds at 40%. If both are preparing for their top scenario, as logic would dictate, how does that change anything, as a practical matter? Both are going to do essentially the same things to prepare, provided their goals are the same, for example, both want to survive. What good does it do for those two individuals to argue about the odds?

My opinion is that things are murkier than anything being certain. But no matter what someone thinks the odds of their top scenario are, what that person should do as a practical matter is still the same. The nuance is that the lower the conviction, the less likely it may be that someone will prepare well for whatever their top scenario is. I think from a survival standpoint, having great conviction helps. For example, if someone has great conviction that an all-out nuclear war is going to happen and is making preparations to survive, my bet would be that that person will be the one who will survive that scenario.
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

FullMoon
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:55 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by FullMoon »

I agree with you Higg. It's an intellectual debate until you get the feeling. For me it's a combination of dread and fear. And I keep trying to rationalize it away. But last year was kind of like and in-your-face experience. Where and how the bombs fall is immaterial to the fact that fundamental changes are at hand and leaving our lives in the hands of bureaucrats who've led us to this point isn't prudent. But it's a difficult job to accomplish.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 2935
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by Cool Breeze »

Really quickly, John you said
We know from the Bible that Jesus expected to return
soon, at least within the lives of his apostles. So he was wrong
about that.
You started off with an incorrect statement; this premise is not true. You then went into some bizarre multi paragraph assumption of what I, or people like me (?) believe, none of which are true either. Then you made some link with logic within that bizarre story line. If you have a question about what I believe or what my take is, just ask me. None of what you said or suggested in that post is true, or accurate. That's pretty unfortunate. I regret that you don't know the teachings of the orthodox church either, which may be another reason why you despair, though you shouldn't since you have many gifts from God that are amazing, wonderful and eternal.

---
Higgy said,
Hypothetically speaking, let's say that one person has as their top scenario an all-out nuclear war with 100% odds. Someone else also has that as their top scenario, but that person wants to be "reasonable" and put the odds at 40%. If both are preparing for their top scenario, as logic would dictate, how does that change anything, as a practical matter? Both are going to do essentially the same things to prepare, provided their goals are the same, for example, both want to survive. What good does it do for those two individuals to argue about the odds?
That's a good question. But it changes a lot of things. I can make contingencies that aid and assist for the other probabilities that exist that also enhance the totality of my expected outcomes. If I go all in (like seemingly many go here) I also bear the cost of being unreasonable and going mad, another risk both now and later (if nothing happens). If no one can survive the all out nuclear war, which may be another reason to just say don't worry about it at all and go about your business, a mentality such as this assigning a probability to even that scenario shows how much healthier the multi-pronged probabilistic approach is.

In short, I can still make preparations that might help my survival chances enough in a really bad scenario that also has enough survival to where not being ALL IN ruins my life both now, and limits my prospect for the future if NOTHING, or nothing similar to what is predicted here, happens. I think it's pretty clear, then, that this is the healthier approach, and provides the best path with multiple outcomes, since we do not know what will happen.

I call predicting a war at 80% within 3 years, and 100% within the decade, as a claim that "we know" what is going to happen. Fair?

Cool Breeze
Posts: 2935
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by Cool Breeze »

FullMoon wrote:
Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:30 pm
I agree with you Higg. It's an intellectual debate until you get the feeling. For me it's a combination of dread and fear. And I keep trying to rationalize it away. But last year was kind of like and in-your-face experience. Where and how the bombs fall is immaterial to the fact that fundamental changes are at hand and leaving our lives in the hands of bureaucrats who've led us to this point isn't prudent. But it's a difficult job to accomplish.
This is one of the other possibilities, too. That a war may occur and human nature hasn't changed are undeniable - and I've always stated this. But the character and the location of the war are HUGELY important if we talk about planning. Also, the consideration that we may be more in line for a technocrat Orwellian future that is now possible that never was: that may assume the place of a "war" in the sense that far too many have too much to lose (the Elites, perhaps) and the top players are all OK with subjugating their populaces in a surveillance state, limiting reproduction, taxing, etc.

That may be a worse world than dying. But if you expected to die because of HOT war, and didn't plan for a way out of the Orwellian state, see how the probability of a reasonable survival now SUCKS? My point is proved.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests