Good point. You know this is not tit for tat. If it would be like this, we would already have had Armageddon and we wouldn't discuss these things.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Btw nuclear bombs are not like Chernobyl. They blow and they have a massive effect but after a fairly short time the situation comes to normal rather quickly. With Chernobyl and Fukushima the damage is far worse. The real danger, i think, for humanity is if humanity has the ability to maintain the nuclear power plants. Not sure if that's the case after a nuclear war...

Here I think we disagree. I'm for nuclear energy but against nuclear weapons.

I am against nuclear weapons too.

Nuclear energy scares me.

But the point was that the western psychopaths probably think that they can survive

I get it. This is the strange part. Because whenever they make these war games/simulations with their computers, the outcome is always the same. Nobody wins and nobody eg. nothing survives. Everyone in these higher echelons of power are aware of that.

Not with a successful first strike.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike_(nuclear_strategy)

That's what i was saying

There's no "successful" first strike. You forget the "Dead Hand".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

Not me forgetting. It's USA since Bush. That's why Ray McGovern is anxious all the time. Haven't you heard him saying that? I think the best discussion on the matter was in a Gonzalo Lira's round table.

I'm aware of that. I refer to my previous note. They know there will be no winner. There's no point for pursuing this "plan". They lost and they know it. But politicians can't admit their drastic failures and miscalculations, especially in this case. I think that's why they go "all-in". It's the sunk cost fallacy problem which they can't escape from.

Probably yes.

Let's leave it there for today. Thanks for the insightful discussion. 🙏

We said it all anyway 😃

Thanks also

How many people died as a result of Fukushima and Cherynobl vs Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Tell me again which one is worse.

Good point sure.

Still i can argue that nuclear plants can be more dangerous potentially in the worst case scenario . For Chernobyl they say the deaths were from 4000 to 16000 but we will never know really. We don't know about Fukushima either. The thing is that they can kill you silently and the contamination is far longer. For example a few years ago caesium in the area of Thessaloniki was many times above the limit during the winter , just because of people burning wood in their fireplace.

I know in some countries there is a debate about the nuclear energy. Not the case in our conversation.