Hacker News Reader

Comment by Synaesthesia | Hacker News Reader

So let's see we've allowed all the arms control treaties to lapse, every single major power is investing more in armaments including nuclear delivery systems.

There is a huge active conflict in Ukraine, right in Europe, the Middle East and many other places like Africa. Many more conflicts are brewing like in Latin America, China, India/Pakistan etc.

There should be alarm bells going off. People aren't aware of just how massive and devastating this threat is.

In the 1980s there were huge protests about jucelar weapons that actually resulted in detente and a relaxation of tensions.

Right now tensions and conflicts are rising. Many people think the threat of nuclear weapons went away after the cold war. They never did.

Where are the peace movements? There has to be popular pressure to institute arms control, make peace and ultimately dismantle these nuclear weapons.

View on HN

The Obama administration negotiated a number of arms control agreements with various nations (including Russia), and won a Peace prize before they even had anything signed.

Other nations are subject to the penalties of the NTBT.

I hope that we all hope that fusion research will displace hazardous waste in energy production.

Peace movements are sponsored by lots of people in lots of nations.

Nixon, for example, worked to smear the pro-Peace antiwar folks as drug user hippies who couldn't figure out free booze at presidential parties who thus deserved to be incarcerated (without conjugal visits, rights over their bodies and their health, library books, or the right to vote) and marginalized.

People voted to cancel saboteurially-wasteful Reagan-Bush cold war star wars bs and invested in free trade and Peace.

The US is the only NATO member state that claims immunity for War Crimes before the ICC International Criminal Court.

The US just bullied other NATO nations into committing to spending 5% of GDP on defense spending by ~~2030~~ 2035 IIRC. Defense ETFs are up since this administration took office in January, and AI datacenter and AI spending are up, but we are now otherwise lacking in economic growth and we've stopped creating new jobs.

All nations suffer the opportunity costs of war; things we could have paid for instead like healthcare, infrastructure, and education will be underfunded due to zero-sum allocation of the proceeds in the coffer to fights that don't net Peaceful returns.

Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush. (I wasn't GW Bush, either, but somehow they overlooked me.)

Were you elected president?

Actually many US Presidents have been recognized by the Nobel Peace Committee which honors the contributions of Alfred Nobel.

List of heads of state and government Nobel nominees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_and_gov...

List of individuals nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (2000–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individuals_nominated_...

For example, W Bush and Blair were nominated for Nobel Peace Prizes in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 (while occupying Iraq and Afghanistan with ___ % civilian casualty rates (and while they were not paying the bill for the multi-trillion dollar debt-financed discretionary wars with Tax Cuts))

> I hope that we all hope that fusion research will displace hazardous waste in energy production.

AFAIK, both fusion and fission rely on the same neutron radiation to extract energey from the reaction. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think fusion doesn't produce hazardous waste.

AFAIU critical runaway in a fusion reactor is less hazardous than in a fission reactor.

Fusion reactors are super hot and there can be thermal runaway, but you can just kill the electricity to kill some fusion reactors AFAIU.

There are described models where production of e.g. 3He (from standard D-T fusion or similar) is in a different facility than the fusion electricity production plants that process the 3He (in order to limit processing and distribution of hazardous materials).

Hopefully the nuclear transmutation folks can find a way to retrofit existing fission plants to burn the fuel further down before storage and transport; burn it all the way down in the existing casks with lasers and radiation please.

Ukraine war is a direct result of your peace movements. Like disarming Ukraine https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_79035.htm?selectedLo...

The peace movements of the 60s/70s/80s grew up "in the shadow of the mushroom cloud" [1] not only aware of their legacy from WW2, but it was constantly drilled into them that there might be a nuclear attack against them at any second of any day. That threat hasn't existed since 1991. That same generation was also very cognizant of nuclear disaster, as both the Three Mile Island & Chernoybl disasters had just happened. So, they weren't only well aware of what the steaks were, it was figuratively drilled into them from childhood.

I'm sure most people now don't even consider a realistic concern, but just more posturing by two authoratative world leaders. In Putin's case, I'd be mostly inclined to agree with that position, considering he's in a stalemate in Ukraine and has basically reached his "wunderwaffe" stage of the war, where he has essentially nothing left to use to fight an entrenched war with and the only way he sees his position to get anything out with through any sort of diplomacy is via fear. Presumably, he knows it's not a tactic that could ever work. Perhaps it's more for his domestic audience than anything else.

[1] Hammer to Fall by Queen https://genius.com/Queen-hammer-to-fall-lyrics

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe?wprov=sfla1

I think there are several things happening here.

1. People feel "we won the cold war, so the threat of nuclear war is past". I do not think they are entirely wrong (the risk is still much lower) but its complacent to ignore it. I think it is worsened by people clinging to "end of history" theory.

2. Campaigning against nuclear weapons was far easier when the west was winning the cold war and dominated the world economy.

3. People who are worried about existential threats as now focused on climate change. People seem to be able to worry about only one big threat at a time. There are a number of others (space weather is another, pandemics were until we got a rude awakening) that get ignored.

They also look for a new big threat when necessary, to ensure they never run out of threats. I read of "the problem of overpopulation, the gravest of all social problems of our time," in a book written in 1977.

Has an armed society not been a polite society?

Genuine question.

I think people are aware but we are powerless.

We are not powerless. History (even very recent history) makes this point abundantly clear.

"A common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any." -- Alice Walker

I agree. If 5-7 million person No Kings protests are ignorable blips, and the House of Representatives is only technically in session, what's left, legally?

Voting.

You can't vote away the people behind the curtains and the kingmakers. Quoting Sir Humphrey Applyby:

"British democracy recognises that you need a system to protect the important things of life, and keep them out of the hands of the barbarians. Things like the Opera, Radio Three, the countryside, the law, the universities ... both of them."

You only vote for which lunatic to run the asylum. And I agree that there are differences among the lunatics, but what about the people who run the asylum?

If you are talking about voting in the US than you haven't been following all the efforts to manipulate voting in the US. Turns out the party in power has all they tools they need to make sure that the people who don't like them can't vote.

We get to vote for president once every 4 years, and that single election has the Electoral College mediating it. The EC can be and is gamed.

A general strike would do it. You just need to make sure you draw a red line where enough people are on board.

> In the 1980s there were huge protests about jucelar weapons that actually resulted in detente and a relaxation of tensions.

Really? Yes there were protests, in the west (that sort of thing was generally frowned upon in the Eastern Bloc countries), but they didn't do much.

What I recall happening was that one of the principle parties started to suffer from a worsening economy and could sustainably maintain the spending the cold war demanded. When that party became much more conciliatory, progress on arms control resulted. Didn't end up saving them in the end.

The language that came out around the middle of the Ukraine war was the possibility of a "targeted low-yield tactical nuke". It was almost being talked about as if that's better and fine to do. Orwell lives on, misuse of language is such a thing toward all kinds of bad.

Nuclear testing just means it's game-on. Every other country will need to do testing to match the show of force. This is insanity. None of the doom-sayers were hyperbolic, voting in an idiot is truly dangerous.

Former Apprentice Star Donald Trump wins the US Presidency and re-enables nuclear testing

What the fuck is going on?

It is amazing that people only now start talking about this. You'd think that fighting Russia "indirectly" and launching drones and missiles at Moscow would have caused concern up to 3 years ago.

There was a missile strike on Moscow?

Idk if any landed, but there have definitely been attempts to fire missiles into Russia. Many drone attacks on Moscow have succeeded. My search tools are not cooperating with me but Russian officials have made public statements saying they know we must operate the toys we're giving Ukraine, so we are at war with them essentially.

Ukraine has also destroyed some Russian nuclear bombers and early warning radars. What do you think the Russians think of that? Nevermind who you think is more responsible for starting this war... Isn't it a bad thing for it to continue down this road? HIMARS, Patriot, ATACMS, Tomahawk, Storm Shadow, Taurus, F-16's and other jets... Is there any end to it?

> attempts to fire missiles into Russia

I was asking about Moscow.

> Russian officials have made public statements saying they know we must operate the toys we're giving Ukraine

Ah yes, in line with their leader's propaganda that Ukraine has no culture of its own and should embrace conquest. I forgot about all the American soldiers and pilots that have been captured by Russia while operating F-16s and Javelins and Patriots.

> Ukraine has also destroyed some Russian nuclear bombers and early warning radars. What do you think the Russians think of that?

Probably whatever state television tells them to think.

> Isn't it a bad thing for it to continue down this road?

Clearly Putin doesn't think so or he'd withdraw. Let's just copy his homework and keep it going.

>I was asking about Moscow.

As I said there have been many attacks on Moscow. You can easily find stories for yourself such as this one: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-drone-attack-f...

>Ah yes, in line with their leader's propaganda that Ukraine has no culture of its own and should embrace conquest.

I've never heard this but it's irrelevant to whether or not the US should risk nuclear war over this.

>I forgot about all the American soldiers and pilots that have been captured by Russia while operating F-16s and Javelins and Patriots.

It is a fact that Ukraine does not know how to operate these systems, and they require data from US satellites. It takes quite a bit of training to get up to speed. Furthermore, if anything, Russia would flatten these systems with missiles rather than roll up to them and capture the operators.

>Probably whatever state television tells them to think.

The Russians know that their media is showing them propaganda. Certain Americans like yourself don't recognize that our media is also full of state-backed propaganda. This has been known for decades and some people never got the memo. It didn't stop with Operation Mockingbird. Our military literally has a psychological warfare division (like most others, probably).

>Clearly Putin doesn't think so or he'd withdraw. Let's just copy his homework and keep it going.

He will never withdraw. That is a suicidal fever dream. Are you a Ukrainian who drank the Kool-Aid that Zelinskyy is putting out? Or are you a propaganda agent?

> You can easily find stories for yourself

Which one mentions missile strikes that you previously claimed? Missile strikes. On Moscow. Not light planes. Not "on Russia". The statement you made above.

> I've never heard this but it's irrelevant to whether or not the US should risk nuclear war over this.

Putin has made numerous statements claiming the illegitimacy of Ukrainian statehood and culture. It's not relevant to the risk of nuclear war but it is relevant to the point I was replying to about functionaries echoing the bigotry.

> It is a fact that Ukraine does not know how to operate these systems, and they require data from US satellites. It takes quite a bit of training to get up to speed.

Haha and now you are backpedaling from "US soldiers are physically operating the equipment" to "well... nobody knows how to use a Patriot without training". What is your deal? Are you just used to talking to ill-informed people? Okay good you've stuck with it...

> Russia would flatten these systems with missiles rather than roll up to them and capture the operators.

And now you're an expert on military doctrine. Okay general, so every Patriot battery has been struck from the air. Then the Ukrainian soldiers hastily removed the bodies to prevent the Russians from discovering and publicizing the presence of American ground units after taking the territory. Then paid off the families of the US troops to not mention their death. And of course there is no satellite or fpv footage of these US troops. Or leak from the Ukrainian rank and file about US military on the front line.

Honestly do you think for a minute before claiming something?

> Certain Americans like yourself don't recognize that our media is also full of state-backed propaganda.

Zzz.

> He will never withdraw. That is a suicidal fever dream.

Haha so who is to blame for nuclear tensions? The country not kinetically involved in the war (except with your ghost soldiers) or the madman who threatens nuclear escalation every five minutes? The person who you say wouldn't even withdraw from an offensive war if it meant nuclear holocaust?

> Are you a Ukrainian who drank the Kool-Aid that Zelinskyy is putting out? Or are you a propaganda agent?

Zzzzzzzz.

>Where are the peace movements? There has to be popular pressure to institute arms control, make peace and ultimately dismantle these nuclear weapons.

The current peace movement likes nuclear bombs. Which is odd, the old peace movement didnt, but it has been extremely effective difference.

But this distinction has essentially made nobody acknowledge them as a peace movement. Which is crazy, we finally have a peace movement that's successful and they dont get credit.

I'm confused. Which peace movement are you talking about?

> Where are the peace movements?

A lot of the "peace movements" of the past were financially and ideologically supported by the USSR and Russia [1].

There's nothing bad per se to say against pacifism, to the contrary - but the public image of pacifist movements these days has been heavily tarnished by both the obvious Russia-apologetism regarding the Ukraine war [2] and outright glorification of the horrors done by Hamas on Oct 7th.

[1] https://www.swr.de/swrkultur/wissen/wie-russische-einflussne...

[2] https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/zuviel-verstaendnis-fue...

This is some fine astroturfing. They don’t exist anymore because they were commie-funded and also they exist and are cheering for Hamas to kill Israelis. Yes, peace movements are famous for that.

> They don’t exist anymore because they were commie-funded

I don't claim they don't exist any more, I claim they lost political relevance.

> and also they exist and are cheering for Hamas to kill Israelis

AI and HRW have a serious anti-Israel bias [1].

[1] https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-amnesty-international-suspended...

That article has no real arguments for the bias. And if you are trying to make a point, at least to to cite a somewhat neutral source, Elliott Abrams is very pro-Israel.

You could also argue that for such as small country Israel has managed disproportionate amounts of suffering and should be treated thereafter. I'm so sick of people taking the Israeli side as if they are some innocent nation being harassed by Hamas. They are ruthlessly killing Palestinians and the world is mostly acting as if this is a proper response to a single incident killing just a fraction of people. What Hamas did on the 7th of October 2023 was terrible, what Israel has done since then is way way way way worse, not even comparable. And going back in history it looks the same. AI and HRW is taking a stance against these terrible crimes, while the rest of the world is cheering on.

> What Hamas did on the 7th of October 2023 was terrible, what Israel has done since then is way way way way worse, not even comparable.

Legally, Israel would have had the right to wipe Palestine off the map as a response to this factual declaration of war until Hamas declares surrender.

According to what law exactly?

As per the very unbiased CIA influence launderers at the CFR.

So, 80 years of occupation, displacement, and killings didn't tarnish them, nor 2 years of bombing civillians enclosed in a walled off plot of land, with 100,000 dead and genocide - but a single day attack where most people just died from friendly fire under a "allow no hostages" doctrine did?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com