Nordic neighbours release new advice on surviving war
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
in which he says that WWIII may be a more urgent risk. It's a race.
https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DOD... (1.5 MB PDF)
Of course, when Niall Ferguson spoke, it looked at the contingency: he sees a possibility of catastrophic consequences that may come much earlier than the climatic "Armageddon". (Well, in some news peices today they spoke about "before Xmas"... It makes the order of events very definite.)
Definitely some elements of some western countries are guilty of what you're alleging, but I don't think enough to justify saying the countries themselves did.
The problem wasn't lack of government power, the problem was that shock therapy was a fucking awful way to handle the transition, that Yeltsin was a shitty autocrat who carried out a successful, bloody coup (Which didn't stop him from enjoying Western support - which would overlook any autocratic power grab, as long as Russia under him underwent shock therapy. Friggin' Bill Clinton campaigned for him), and that NATO turned from a purely defensive alliance to an offensive alliance and started acting unilaterally in what Russia felt was it's sphere of influence. (After a few years of good relations and bilateral collaboration.)
All that turned out to be a great way to rebuild an antagonistic relationship.
If you really want to point fingers at, though, I suppose you could blame Gorbachev for failing to keep the USSR intact and resigning, handing over power to assholes like Yeltsin. Gorbachev was a far better statesman and general human being than his successors were.
Nitpick: I get your point, but phrasing it like this is basically the gambler's fallacy. That's not how probability works.
You could ask though if, given the changed environment, the one-in-a-million event still has the odds of one-in-a-million. Or if one-in-a-million is really such a rare thing if you make a billion draws...
a one-in-a-million event that is tried a million times has a ~63% chance of happening.
Why are they not scholarized? What are they doing in the wild? There's an infestation and it is mentioned marginally, as opposed to red-level crisis?!
> while they are distracted
They should be trained towards the conditions for focus pre-emptively!
(The author is left as an exercise for the reader)
It's like the Finnish defense forces. Their training exercises have the OPFOR, the imaginary opposing force usually designated with the color yellow for the sake of the exercise, approaching from the East. Funny that, wonder why.
- p.v. with storage means freezers operational, and freezers means food, protein in particular, for potentially very long periods
- even without p.v. a home in the wood means being able to heat in the winter sourcing wood in nature, uncomfortable but still heat, also usable to cook
- you have room to store water, from the aqueduct with a personal pump in home pipes, so with p.v. you get cold and hot water, potentially for a week or two, and in nature sources tend to be common at our latitudes
In an apartment in a dense city you can just keep a bit of water, but still much less than the countryside, next to zero chance for p.v. and energy storage, very limited chance to source water in nature, even issues to walk for many stairs if elevators have no energy. Long story short: you can't be resilient. Oh, and you might be targeted because hitting a city it's easy and some damages are assured, hitting the countryside is essentially wasting weapons. Remember as well: with wood you can cook various long lasting foods, like rice, beans, ... without wood or locally produced energy your cooking ability going down to zero.
Floods? Spread homes might be or not at risk, but they are still spread, meaning few per flooded are, so rescuing it's doable as temporary shelters, emergency food supply etc. Dense areas? The same in risk terms, but extremely hard to help simply because there are too many people hit together.
Earthquakes? Very similar, plus the fact that light homes tend to allow quick escape, tall buildings do not, and even if they might be well designed in seismic terms they are still very problematic. Fires? idem.
Long story short: it's pointless to publish such next-to-obvious recommendations, some could do something, many could not.
Beside in spread area you have friends as well as in city, but there we are all collaborative even when we do not like each other much because we are few, in cities we are strangers in the crowd.
If you're referring to those being important in a major disaster, I'd disagree. Any major disruption can knock out celular networks and in a war they'd be deliberately targeted.
Instead, your best bet would be a predetermined plan for how to get in contact with loved ones if the comms and electrical grids collapse (where to meet, when, and where to leave notes possibly).
As for cars, maybe in certain scenarios, such as having an offroad vehicle stored in some isolated place that you can reach, but if an earthquake, flood, war or some other disaster suddenly strikes, roads will be one of its major victims, rapidly being damaged and in any case clogged with heavy traffic. A car of any kind inside a city would probably be next to useless after a serious disaster.
Instead, you would be better off with a few motorbikes/dirt bikes, or even better, bicycles safely and carefully stored against possible theft. Having these for your family, and possibly some kind of compact cart that can be hitched up for pulling supplies or anyone who simply cant ride their own bike would be much more flexible and usable no matter how badly your region's transport infrastructure is devastated. Bikes (motorized or manual) can cover nearly any terrain and don't need roads if they're even minimally built for off-roading.
It is not pointless to publish recommendations because it makes people consider the possibility of regular facilities not being available. While city dwellers may not be able to keep more than a week's worth of supplies before they need resupply or evacuation that makes them more prepared for such eventualities than those who think they will always be able to use their mobile devices to order from the plethora of restaurants their city offers. It can make the difference between organised chaos and disordered mayhem if that war or crisis were to occur.
Be Prepared! is not just the boy scouts of old motto - no idea what the modern watered-down version of that institution professes - but also just a good idea. It does not mean you need to become a prepper but it does point out the need for some self-reliance because that whole fragile house of cards which is the service economy may just come tumbling down some day.
Oh ye, the outlawing of losing wars. Not very convincing for adults but I guess teenagers think it sounds cool.
I don't think it is a good idea to give the soldiers the impression that they will fight to the last man, since that encourages killing their officers at an earlier stage than they would otherwise. Preferably, you want to lure with some peace agreement that is just around the corner, such that the soldiers believe that there is hope for them.
If Sweden ever were to surrender in war it will most likely be broadcast by the prime minister and/or the king/queen (Sweden is a constitutional monarchy). Until such a time and until such a message is confirmed we'll just assume that Sweden has not surrendered.
I think you are confusing Sweden with some other country.
Of course if pushes come to shove the reality is not black and white, no need to be an asshole about it because every adult understands that, quite juvenile of you to think they don't. Guess your kind of rhetoric earn points with the teens, no?
I am sorry. I agree most people 'get it'. The point I am trying to make is that those who don't 'get it' are a big problem if you have nifty slogans like that. Also in a non-total war setting.
> Guess your kind of rhetoric earn points with the teens, no?
I honestly believe that my rhetoric would score very low amongst teens.
Sweden's 'Doomsday Prep for Dummies' guide hits mailboxes today - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42173777 - Nov 2024
Well, let's really hope not. (Let us hope that nothing of worth is ever destroyed, and let us not speak about destruction of universal goods lightly.)
Edit: let us be even more clear (possibly in light of the dismissing feelers who just passed by). If you are into destruction of the cultural heritage, you are the enemy. Complexities just come later.
Destruction of the Worth = bad.
I.e. it is part of what should be fought.
Sorry.
Edit: I will express it again, and to stress the point: some things are the fruit of the drive towards construction. Some other things may be destroyers. So, it all depends. No, we will not attribute worth to destroyers.
If we turn St Petersburg into rubble, I doubt anyone will be worrying about a few trifling conventional weapons. NATO and Russia go at it, and we're all just sitting around next month waiting for the Chinese, Brazilians, Indians and South Africans to sort out who is responsible for which relief efforts.
Actually, now I think about it, that quad will probably be far more concerned with determining the disposition of the remaining NATO/Russian warheads. So even relief efforts might be impacted by their more pressing concerns.
In any case, the world would just be a mess for a good long while.
Yes, exactly, that's why this isn't going to happen.
All that said, you are absolutely right about "spoils". No one is gonna be thinking about "spoils". Probably top of everyone's list of questions will be, "How many warheads are left? And what remnants of NATO or Russia control them?"
We're talking about two groups who would have conclusively shown they are perfectly willing to use their nuclear arsenals to achieve their goals. That, combined with the fact that their goals would become a whole lot less lofty overnight makes me think the world would become a very precarious place.
for that matter they're not going to be able to supply much relief effort, either. hopefully they'll pick a side - India or China - and ride out the eventual hegemonic war between those 2.
Maybe the Australians wouldn't allow that?
I guess I always assumed they would. Kind of like North Korea with Russian warships. I don't think we could take the chance that the Russian naval assets harbored in N Korea were harmless. Likewise, I'm assuming Russia wouldn't be able to make the assumption that American warships harbored in Australia were harmless.
I don't know? Maybe everyone's naval ships just surrender or something? I doubt it though. Your nation being destroyed is, in my mind, more reason to fight in those circumstances, not less.
I think the US leases bases in Australia. Given that a single aircraft carrier group contains more power than the ADF combined I would suggest any that limp back to Australia's shores would be able to continue using these ports.
Also, there is a chance that in the event of a full-blown nuclear exchange Russian leadership would see the showdown as fundamentally civilisational, and seek to take Australia down simply because it is unambiguously an outpost of Anglo-American culture.
2.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoal_Bay_Receiving_Station - Brrzzt!
3.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_Satellite_C... - Sparkle!
One of the places that sends the "shoot 'em up boys* signal to the stealth nuclear subs.
I'd thought these days the signal would be "OK Boomer"?
(I'm still impressed that the РВСН has St Barbara as a patron saint. They claim that it's because they were founded on her day, 17.12.59, but I'd bet it has rather more to do with towers and lightning strikes as attributes, as well as her existing patronage over artillerymen, tunnellers, and explosives workers in general. They make severe waffle irons in Chelyabinsk: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/OUQPxihQfQDuPE-8f8X1... )
when you have 30 000 warheads you might as well sprinkle them around for all allies of NATO for good measure. When you are doing a nuclear exchange that's the strategy anyway.
Nobody is gonna be in a situation to reassert control.
During the cold war, there was a widespread theory that an all-out nuclear war would produce a similar effect; there are, after all, a great many warheads out there. So it was theorised that even countries that didn't participate in a nuclear war would end up with crop failures and mass starvation. The so-called "nuclear winter" or "nuclear holocaust".
Thankfully this theory has not yet been put to the test.
It's about being prepared for all kinds of eventualities, whatever they might be.
For example, last year and early this year heavy winds fell trees on electric lines both in Finland and Sweden, cutting off electricity locally for many days. There was a pandemic not too long ago. Waterworks problems have happened in the past in Finland and also happened this year in Sweden. DDoSing happens here and there, it can impact banks and such.
In addition, grayzone/hybrid operations i.e. all kinds of stupid bullying are constantly conducted: for example, earlier today a submarine cable between Germany and Finland (C-Lion1) was cut, and later today another submarine cable between Lithuania and Sweden was cut as well. Such cables don't just snap by themselves.
Like the Finnish page says: "Prepared people cope better".
https://www.suomi.fi/guides/preparedness
https://www.msb.se/en/advice-for-individuals/the-brochure-in...
Your general points are valid, but undersea cables do fail for many reasons. A few moments of googling turns up industry failure statistics. Most are still due to human activity in some way (but unintentional, like an anchor drag) but plenty are due to the natural environment of the sea floor.
Edit: Huh, a totally legitimate question that points directly at the underlying cause, and downvoted to the limit. Does it hurt that much to admit that people are getting exactly the government they want?
Of course not. Civil defence is a good thing, sticking your head in the sand is not. Also, the brochure is not just about war but also about other crises. Sweden can experience 'interesting' weather which can leave people out of reach of rescue services for a while so 'be prepared' is just good advice.
Don't start it, in the first place. Not having an agressive stance also helps. /s