This isn’t the world I want to live in.

M0nica Tue 11-Mar-25 16:30:11
Another good post.

Anyone who doesn't remember some of the horrors of the years even since WW2 is perhaps too young or took no interest in current affairs.

Those who mock and deride the real anxiety many feel currently about the state of the world, with real concerns, not for ourselves, but for our grandchildren, and all the children of the world- are hugely unkind and honestly, inhumane.

And no, the world has never been in such a dangerous situation. Anyone with ACs in the army must be aware.

No-one is mocking or deriding.

Some of us remember the realities.

If you have DC or DGC in the military, I can understand your heightened sense of anxiety, though Claremont, as those with family in any of the Forces, not just the Army, are well aware but would or should not be discussing this.

Those in the Forces, I mean, just to clarify.

Claremont

Those who mock and deride the real anxiety many feel currently about the state of the world, with real concerns, not for ourselves, but for our grandchildren, and all the children of the world- are hugely unkind and honestly, inhumane.

And no, the world has never been in such a dangerous situation. Anyone with ACs in the army must be aware.

I have never mocked or deride anyone, but decisions about the state of the world should be based on a proper assessment of the situation and an understanding of the times you are comparing it with, Look at some of my links in previous posts.

I understand people being worried about how things are, people worry about a wide range of subjects, but making inaccurate comparisons to support a case, is not helpful.

Is the world in a more dangerous place than it was throughout the cold war? Were you alive during the Bay of Pigs incident. What is happening now is nothing compared with that. Just because it ended OK doesn't diminish how dangerous it was. How does Gaza compare with the Holocaust?

I come from an army family, 3 generations of the family in the forces, 5 served in WW1, 4, including my maternal grandfather did not return. In WW2 my paternal grandfather and his seven sons all served in the army, miraculously all returned.My father served in the army for 25 years and we lived in countries facing insurgencies.

The Middle East as always is a powder keg. It is in the end a problem that can only be solved by those involved, and they show no desire to. Ukraine is alo frightening and, yes, anything could happen, but more dangerous than WW2, no, not really.

claremont I am neither unkind nor inhuman, I am 85 years of age (yep, and I can almost hear you saying, she’s lucky, she’s lived her life.) But I will use these 85 years to say that I have lived through far more dangerous times, these are just different as they all were in their way. Nothing at the moment has come close to the Cuba missile crisis in the early 1960s, and all my teenage years and beyond were during the Cold War years when a wrong word by anyone could’ve tipped the world into war. My early years were spent in wartime and the austerity that followed, rationing went on for years afterwards. And much later there was the unrest in Northern Ireland which brought random bombings into mainland Britain. But you carry on, you enjoy life to the best of your ability and make sure you pass that ability to enjoy life on to the next generation. It is absolutely pointless worrying about things you cannot personally change, except at the ballot box. It is a waste of a life and if that makes me unkind or inhumane, I’m sorry you see it that way and it’s the last thing I would want.

thank you grammargran. Of course you haven't- but some did. And talk about mental illness, depression and medical help.

Yes, the Cuba crisis was the most dangerous time ever for the world, agreed. Other conflicts mentionned were terrible for those who lived locally, but did not threaten the whole world.

After the Cuban crisis, many of us became very active in campaining, very actively, against nuclear proliferation. And that felt positive and gave optimism.

But proliferation did happen, and nuclear weapons are now in so so many hands, and in the hands of those who are totally crazy, unbalanced and mad for power.

The other new factor, is the new concept of smaller nuclear weapons, that can be highly targeted, giving the impression to the above that a limited 'little' nuclear attack is possible. The MAD situation of the Cuban crisis has now gone, and this makes it all so so much more dangerous currently.

But thank you for your words. My post was never 'aimed' at you at all, of course.

''The most serious danger that lurks in making the case that limited nuclear wars are fightable, containable, and even winnable is a heightened temptation to use nuclear weapons. It could lead to the belief that worthwhile military or political objectives are achievable through managed nuclear use. But, as stated earlier, there can be no guarantee that a nuclear exchange between two nuclear weapon states will remain limited. It may. But then it may not, and that might prove to be a risk that is too risky. In fact, a perception that the adversary is indicating greater nuclear swagger by getting away with ‘limited’ nuclear use could generate a greater sense of vulnerability and raise the incentives for pre-emption. This would make a nuclear exchange more likely, not less likely. Therefore, the deterrence effects of showcasing limited nuclear use need to be evaluated with care.

In fact, besides increasing the chances of deterrence breakdown, the pursuit of nuclear war-fighting capabilities (even if ostensibly for the purpose of deterrence) through the greater accuracy of nuclear-tipped missiles, elaborate intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance infrastructure, and damage limitation defences would also be a financially exhausting exercise.

A third consequential challenge comes from the harm that limited nuclear war would cause to the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. The conduct of nuclear use in which the first user is able to show a successful ability to keep nuclear war limited could set a precedent that others could be tempted to follow. It would ‘conventionalise’ the use of nuclear weapons and make it appear normal to use small nuclear weapons in ‘limited’ ways. If this were to happen against non-nuclear weapon states, such as Russian nuclear use against Ukraine or Chinese nuclear use against Taiwan, it could spur proliferation. Non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) would face a renewed sense of insecurity. In such a scenario, one can expect them to want to acquire nuclear capabilities of their own. Meanwhile, a ‘successful’ nuclear exchange between two nuclear-armed states could open another pandora’s box.''

This is why the situation is currently very different.

Source link

www.apln.network/news/member_activities/dissecting-the-idea-of-limited-nuclear-war

If gnawing on your knuckles makes you feel that you’re helping the situation, rock on

Seems like mocking to me.

Is the world in a more dangerous place than it was throughout the cold war? Were you alive during the Bay of Pigs incident. What is happening now is nothing compared with that. Just because it ended OK doesn't diminish how dangerous it was.

Of course, it may not have ended well and the historical timeline would have told a different story.

Had we entered the Vietnam War, how many British Forces would have lost their lives or been injured? The converse is worth considering, too, for the Iraq War.

All of these incidents, and others, were sliding doors scenarios.

You mentioned the Army, Claremont but you forget what is happening at sea and beneath the waves.

God bless the Royal Navy and those at sea, under-resourced and ignored by so many.
“If you wish for peace, prepare for war”

My father was in the Royal Navy (which is why I was born in Portsmouth). I was always very proud of him, handsome in his uniform and a thoroughly decent man.

What’s your alternative afurret ?

Sorry Furret

Not keen on the alternative

Clarement an interesting idea but as the author of your link says, 'every so often the idea surfaces' - and that is all it is an idea, that someone thinks of and thinks through.

There is absolutely no evidence that this idea of limited nuclear attack has been seriously raised or considered by any country with access to nuclear weapons.

What is more it won't, because the first country that does that will be taken out by a large nuclear power with a large nuclear bonb. Not very pleasant I grant you. That would also apply if the country playing silly buggers was a large nuclear power.

Nobody wants nuclear war, the results would be too awful for everyone

Speaking to friends over 80 we all remember the Bay of Pigs incident and just one night when, separately, we all wondered whether we would wake up the next morning.
The position now with several apparently mentally disturbed leaders of nations and competent and caring statesman or women in short supply seems much more concerning. Sheer greed and over reliance on technology appears to be rocking the world.

At least we have good leaders in President Trump and Sir Keir.
They need our confidence and encouragement.

You are obviously a Trump supporter Jolene, and sadly deluded.

Sir Keir wasn’t on top form at PMQs today. Trump may well deliver some kind of peace for Russia and Ukraine. Still early days. One line comments on both Trump and Keir don’t help. Barleyfields

How long a dissertation would you like?

10000 words are usual Barleyfields but since I am not an awarding authority, don’t bother… but a few paragraphs would be good??

We are currently in the situation in the states where, to quote a hackneyed saying the lunatics are now running the assylum.

They have a President who has the reading and vocabulary of an 8 year old - and presumably the intellectual powers of a child of that age and he has appointed an unelected foreigner, permanently high on drugs to run a key office of state.

A bit like Keir Starmer deciding to appoint Boris Johnson to run the Home Office! Imagine the totally justified national outrage if he did anything like that, yet the American public, even worse their elected representatives, haven't even cheaped. They must all be as mentally challenged as their President and his new best friend

“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”