Threads has to be the most upsetting film I've seen.
All national leaders should somehow be legally compelled to watch it. We need them to be as scared as possible of nuclear war.
Charlie Stross has a vivid account of his feelings on the subject:
"I'm a child of the 1970s and 1980s; I grew up under the shadow of the mushroom cloud. Prior to the end of the cold war in 1989-91, I don't believe I ever lived more than 10 kilometres from a strategic nuclear target."
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-u...
I think a lot of people who grew up in the Cold War and who contemplated what might actually happen still have that lingering "Lovecraftian horror" from the whole business.
Trump is making pro-Russia noises, but anti-China noises, and he could easily change his mind on a dime and go ballistic over some perceived slight from Putin. Many people feel complacent about it because the Soviet Union has collapsed and relations between the USA and Russia are relatively peaceful, but this is a false sense of security.
He said on his Morning Joe programme: “Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump.
“And three times he [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can’t we use them.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/696241/Donald-Trump-asks...
I assume you think you know what they are for. How do you know you're right if you don't ask?
I don't know the name of it, but there is a fallacy among some people that equates asking for more information with a lack of knowledge. But actually it's the opposite: Ignorant people tend not to ask for information, while those who actually understand ask a lot, because unlike the others they know what they don't know. Foolish people confuse this for ignorance.
But either way -- it's fine for him, as a human being, if he still needs to look up in an encyclopedia, or "ask an expert" what nuclear weapons are really useful for -- or whether the U.S. still has access to them.
But if he's that far out on the "happy-ignorant-foolish" spectrum -- then I'd greatly, greatly prefer that he not be placed in charge of the disposition of such instruments.
Are you with me on this?
I'm not happy with everything he's said and done. But unlike you I'm not so quick to dismiss people as "happy-ignorant-foolish" just because they don't agree with me.
If you are incapable of understanding why people act in a certain way when it differs from yours then that's your failure, not theirs.
PS. It's clear from your reply that you did not understand what I wrote in my previous message, in fact you seemed to understand almost exactly the opposite of what I wrote. Is that my fault for not being clear? Or are you uninterested in understanding Trump any other way?
I'm quick to dismiss them in that way based on what they say and do -- for example, running or the office of President of the United states, whilst not possessing even a middle-school level knowledge of whether the country you wish to govern actually has nuclear weapons or not; let alone what they are actually useful for -- not because they "disagree with [me]".
Its hard to remember now what the constant subliminal awareness of imminent destruction felt like. Seems that we just don't think about it anymore, even though Russia and the US still have ~2000 active nukes each.
I bet that's the most persistent thing you remember from that teacher. Effective education! And probably tipped you away from the idea that a nuclear war might be winnable, and towards disarmament.
Our teacher showed us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_Darkness for similar reasons, I think.
That's my recollection anyways. I read it in 6th grade, so it's been well over a decade since I read it. I really ought to re-read it.
So, I'm sure that despite the effort the UK Government was well aware of its futility.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/in-the-eve...
Yes - that AA - the Automobile Association....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/nuclear-missile-cod...
There are maps from the early 1950s - pre H-Bomb - which show large areas of the UK reduced to radioactive desert after a relatively small attack.
Unloading tens or hundreds of larger weapons on the UK would do very little to increase its survival prospects.
From that POV, Threads is terrifying but optimistic. It's not clear anyone at all would survive a full exchange. Spending a few years in a bunker would simply delay the inevitable.
All of life could be said to be merely delaying the inevitable.
I am reminded of the story of a man running away from a tiger when he reaches the edge of a cliff and falls over, managing to grab hold of the edge and hanging by one hand. Below him is certain death from the fall, above him is death by the tiger. The man notices some sweet dew dripping from a blade of grass by his face. With moments left to live, he licks the dew.
As adults, we can choose to not see it. As children, in a classroom, we are generally not. Peer pressure and adult authoritarian rule should not be taken lightly. Especially when used to scare children into compliance and leave them lasting marks into adult-hood.
-Speaking as someone that still has irrational issues with being alone, or being alone in the dark. After watching age-inappropriate movies as a child.
Fear is a choice.
Also many people have overcome much greater trauma than 'age-inappropriate movies'... that's absurd.
You'd be amazed at the kinds of films that were shown to young people in an effort tochange their behaviour (with no evidence that it would actually do so).
My favourite example was of a UK tv show Nationwide that got a studio full of young people to watch US style shock films about road and rail safety. The films were so gruesome they couldn't be shown on broadcast tv at that time of the evening. There were shots of young people throwing up and feinting and having to be taken out of the studio, weeping.
(This is mentioned on a TV discussion forum somewhere, but I can't find it. :-/)
I'm pretty sure while it could be considered mildly negligent to give into that pressure, I'm also confident it doesn't constitute child abuse. At least some of us were old almost enough to enlist with the army, I think its good to balance that out with an idea of just what that might entail.
Probably to make whatever grain-sized impact he or she could possibly make towards preventing the scenario described in that movie from ever happening.
I miss the Cold War (during which I also had teachers like this).
Yeah, I was in my 20s when I saw it for the first time. It's powerful.
The article itself suggest a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan would result in 2 billion death (supposedly mostly around India/Pakistan), which means the majority of the worlds population will survive.