Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Nuclear War is Coming

Please remember that I have the right to be wrong in expressing my views, and given the nature of what I’m sharing, I sincerely hope to be very, very wrong.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the current state of things, and it feels like there’s some serious preparation going on behind the scenes, especially when it comes to the U.S. and its adversaries. The U.S. seems to be playing a dual game. On one hand, they’re pushing foreign companies to relocate manufacturing back to the U.S., and on the other, they’re keeping Russia occupied through the proxy war in Ukraine. I can’t help but wonder if the U.S. is preparing for an all-out war down the line, or if they already know it’s coming. Russia and China seem to be the main threats, and maybe the U.S. is trying to get ready now, before it really escalates. But even with Russia being distracted in Ukraine, it’s clear the U.S. knows they’re a tough opponent. Their industrial base is strong, and that’s something the West didn’t fully account for. Dealing with Russia directly is risky, and I think that’s why the U.S. is trying to make sure its economy is prepared for whatever comes next. Bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. makes sense, it ensures the country isn’t dependent on adversaries for key supplies when things heat up.

Historically, we’ve seen civilian factories quickly turned into military production hubs during wartime. During World War II, for example, the U.S. turned automobile factories into tank and airplane manufacturing plants. Companies like Ford and General Motors, which were originally focused on civilian cars, became essential to the war effort, producing military vehicles and aircraft. The transition was rapid and massive, as the entire industrial base was repurposed to meet the needs of the military. This shows how quickly civilian factories can be adapted to a wartime economy, and it’s something that’s still a key strategy today. The U.S. has the industrial capacity, but it needs to ensure it’s not dependent on foreign manufacturers, especially when the geopolitical stakes are this high.

It also makes me think about the growing possibility of nuclear war. It's not something anyone wants to think about, but with the way things are going, the West might actually be willing to engage in it if things escalate. The whole idea that nuclear war is unthinkable feels less true now. The language is changing, and there’s a growing acceptance of nuclear options, even tactical nukes. That’s the part that’s really unsettling, because if Russia and China were to align more closely, the West might eventually feel like nuclear conflict is the only way to maintain some kind of power and influence.

And then there’s Iran, which I think the U.S. sees as more manageable in the short term. They could probably deal with Iran militarily without it spiraling into a larger conflict, but the bigger concern is Russia and China. If those two countries become too strong, the U.S. might feel it has no choice but to consider escalating to a nuclear strategy. It’s a power game, and at some point, that could mean nuclear weapons.

The whole push to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. seems like part of a bigger plan to prepare for a future conflict, but it’s also about the present. The U.S. is positioning itself so that if they get locked into a war with Russia and China, they have the industrial capacity to sustain it. That’s the lesson from the proxy war in Ukraine. Russia has a strong industrial base that keeps its military running despite heavy sanctions. If the U.S. wants to compete, it needs to have that same kind of resilience.

But what really stands out to me is how nuclear war, which seemed unimaginable just a few decades ago, is now part of the conversation. It’s no longer just about deterrence. There’s a real possibility that the U.S. might be willing to use nuclear weapons if it means securing its position. It’s a terrifying thought, but I can’t help feeling like it's being considered more seriously now than ever before.
Top | New | Old
ArishMell · 70-79, M
I don't know about "willing". Prepared perhaps - and a senior Russian army officer who defected a few months ago warned that the Russian Federation still has many ex-USSR missiles still kept maintained.

Dealing with Iran would not be as straightforward as you suggest, because Russia would almost certainly side with her.


[Why did that officer defect?

He objected to an order illegal under international law to tell subordinates to regard all Ukrainians, including civilians, as legitimate targets. In response his superiors demoted him and posted him to the front line. Basically he wanted to be no party to Putin's war-crimes.

This is not a "proxy war" even if it has expanded to something like it. Russia decided it wanted to seize Ukraine so marched in, but was surprised to find the Ukranians themselves objected. Other countries becaome involved only later.

Russia had already stolen Crimea; despite Russia, Ukraine, the UK and USA signing a Treaty of independence and sovereignity for Ukraine in return for Russia taking back ex-USSR nuclear weapons kept there.]
ImNotHungry · 36-40, M
@ArishMell
This is not a "proxy war" even if it has expanded to something like it.

I cannot speak to the defector as I know nothing of it, but Aaron Bushnell self immolated outside the Israeli embassy in protest of what he believed to be a genocide. Furthermore you have people like people like Rep Randy Fine who takes pleasure in seeing pics of Palestinian babies dead and buried in ruble, so I don't want to hear about Russia.

As for labelling it a proxy war, well you can feel to take it up with both Marco Rubio and Borris Johnson both of whom have labelled it as such.
plungesponge · 41-45, M
There is actually less chance of nuclear war with Trump in the White House. The Chinese and Russians are very happy waiting to see just how much damage he is going to do to American influence and the Amercian economy before they need to think about a hot war.

Trump's tariffs just handed SE Asia to China and his push to end the Ukraine war has the Russians pleased. They benefit from just waiting atm while doubt erodes the trust and good faith of US allies. Far easier to fight an isolated and distrusted US than a united front.
Jokersswild · 22-25VIP
Why does one man have the power to make this decision? Nukes should only be used when authorized by congress. Now, think about how twisted our system is. Congress has the power to declare war, but the President can order the military to strike or nuke any country , which is basically the same as declaring war.

If Trump stikes Iran, chaos will ensue. We know that the U.S. won't be able to penetrate Iran's nuclear facilities unless they use nukes. Those facilities are too deep underground and in fact, the Houtis have bragged that the U.S. strikes have been largely unsuccessul because their missiles are also deep underground.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
I really hope you are wrong. Interestingly, Trump's list of nations to be subject to his tariffs exclude Russia and N. Korea! It does include Antartica!
ImNotHungry · 36-40, M
@samueltyler2 I think Russia and US have an undisclosed non aggression pact of sorts, but I'm just thinking out loud
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Russia, Chian and North Korea have other weapons now, and are already using them in what so far might be just "tests" or "probes", by Internet-based subversion, interference and sabotage.

The Russians are already occasionally sabotaging property on land and under the sea. Bear in mind the greatest bulk of international telecommunications including the Internet is not by satellite but by fibre-optic cables overland and across the sea floor. Some countries also have undersea electrical power cables or oil and gas pipelines between each other, also potential targets.

The problem with conventional war for the aggressor is that he is taking a gamble and knows he will lose a huge number of people and vast amount of equipment. If a territorial ambition it also means taking over a physically ruined country. If he also If he uses nuclear weapons he also risks not only similar ones landing on his territory, but also the radioactive fall-out drifting down onto his own land.

If an all-out nuclear war ever broke out no-one would "win" but one side would come off less devastated than the other, and everyone including all those neutral and otherwise unaffected would suffer for decades to come.

So any major future war is more likely to something very different from the past.

Until the First World War, fighting was by armies and navies slugging it out. The fighting had relatively little effect on the non-combatants civilians other than conscription, looting by passing soldiers and damage to farm land. Air attacks on cities started in WW1 and WW2 saw the start of widespread damage to cities, culminating in the nuclear fission bombs dropped on Hisoshima and Nagasaki, and the partition of Europe.

The Cold War was a nuclear threat stand-off between "The West" and the USSR; with America apparently using Western Europe as both ally and sacrificial buffer. The Pentagon even placed nuclear warhead missiles in European countries with no intention to seek the host's permission to use them.

It was also the era in which the nuclear hydrogen-fusion bomb was developed; a weapon far more powerful than the uranium-fission weapon. The two fission bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 had "yields" <20kt TNT. The fusion bombs are in the Mega-tonnes range; the most powerful ever tested was a Russian experiment rated at 50Mt, though impracticable as a war weapon due to its physical size and weight. A US test in the Pacific of a 15Mt bomb claimed more Japanese victims by its fall-out drifting down onto the crew of a fishing-boat 100 miles down-wind.

Hence the Cold War stand-off based on the gruesome "Mutually Assured Destruction" premise; though planning also assumed invasion by the Soviet land, air and naval forces and a vast amount of "conventional" fighting.


Now though, we have a new and far more stealthy weapon; launched by pressing [Send] on a computer programme, even a social[??]-media site....... The attacker is hidden, he and everyone around him are physically safe, there is no damage to the physical assets the attacker wants to steal or subjugate.

Backed by the odd ship "accidentally" dragging its anchor across a cable or two, by selected assassinations, by mysterious arson attacks. Or by naked intimidation (as indeed the Chinese navy and air-force are using).
Ferric67 · M
It’s how I am thinking too
jehova · 31-35, M
Its a scary situation.
ImNotHungry · 36-40, M
@jehova Given the subject matter, both your username and reaction made me chuckle.
exchrist · 31-35
@ImNotHungry this is my bizzaro account.
and on the other, they’re keeping Russia occupied through the proxy war in Ukraine.

We aren't doing that; we're trying to restore our adversary.
@ImNotHungry ...huh?

We aren't arming it.

DJT halted even already-authorized shipments of arms.

We're letting Putin pummel them.

Are you yet another spreader of disinfo?
ImNotHungry · 36-40, M
@SomeMichGuy
Please be certain to do your own research before accusing me of misinformation
@ImNotHungry After allowing punishing bombardments.

DJT is a shill for his lover.
maybe we should all get together and have a party while we can
@deadinternet you certainly did that in the past five decades! All hippies party and refuse to understand politics, so, you actually did sing away our future! La la la.
The CIA plants just a few and the rest become anti political. Singing fascists.
@Roundandroundwego i don't know about all that, but i know i will end the war in 24 hours.
@deadinternet nobody at the party will know a thing! But you will party together to exclude the leftist and the serious guy and anyone who can change course! Be the people. Be contempt for the life and no politics!
thrash · 31-35, M
i stopped worrying about this when trump won the election. (thumbs up emoji)
@thrash it's true that Harris would have been a dignified face for the nukes! But Americans don't vote for people against the wars and against using the nukes. Ever!
thrash · 31-35, M
@Roundandroundwego yes, true, but i know trump is pro-peace.
We failed to disarm them.
The capitalists will always bring war!
So now the West is responding to a moment of insecurity by threatening everyone else.
Unfortunately the twentieth century didn't include a complete disarmament of the psychopathic permanent war feature of the West that runs its enormous world domination project out of Washington.
When, in the near future we say "never again" it will definitely be about things such as this gigantic war machine
Oh it’s coming… not if but when. Just a matter of when.
sum of all fears moment imminent.. but i dont think nukes are going to fly...
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@ArishMell they don't stop the war. They pause to refresh.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Roundandroundwego That's certainly all that cease-fires do; but it takes a long time and many courageous people on all sides to end the hostility completely.
@ArishMell it definitely takes a change of mindset throughout the West! Nah! Never. The West will stay the brutal course! One mindset. No learning! We failed to confront it throughout history! It's fatal. The final solution.

 
Post Comment