Here’s the problem with the tariffs.

@MarkPaul It’s true that the US rose to power with it’s allies. That’s sort of the entire point of our history and origin story. It’s how we got where we did. We made friends. It’s so sad to see where we are now losing all of them.

@Reject There is a reason it was called "The Greatest Generation." They were invested in America's future in a way that brought everyone along. Now, with a petty and literally delusional (possibly demented) 79-year-old with the sensibilities of a small child who is focused only on retribution, it is easy to see the difference in outcomes.

@MarkPaul I know it. It’s only 4 years, but so much can happen in that time and I’m just hoping that the damage he causes won’t lead to something like WWIII. This has happened too often in history. We don’t need everyone dying for a man like Trump.

@Reject I don't think a World War will erupt, but sadly everyone (including Cry-Baby-trump and his love interest, Elon) will be worse off.

@MarkPaul There’s a lot of global tension. Iran is responding to Trumps threats of bombing with nukes. So… if those get launched? If Russia gets desperate enough which is likely with their crumbling economy they might resort to nukes having more than anyone else. China has been militarizing for a long time explicitly for the purpose of war. All of Europe is making it a point to build their military too because of Trump. Everyone is doing this. WWIII before the end of his term isn’t exactly an outlandish idea right now. Especially considering what Trumps has done in just a few months when this man has years more to work with. I hope you’re right, but it wouldn’t be shocking.

@Reject World War 3 is outlandish because the obedience to authority isn't what it was in the last century. There won't be enough soldiers to carry out the orders of those who are reliant on sitting behind a desk while everyone else puts themselves in line to be killed. Sure, in the scope of all things that COULD happen, multiple countries could start hurling nuclear weapons at each other or the Earth could become engulfed in tsunamis. The likelihood of those things happening, while fun as part of the doom-and-gloom that people like to absorb themselves in, are not likely to happen though.

What is likely to happen is, Cry-Baby-trump's psychiatric episodes are likely to become more desperate as it become harder for him to fantasize how successful his antics are. And, sadly it is only that desperation, that will affect everyone (EVERYONE), that will end his reign of terror.

@MarkPaul It is interesting that you feel Russia is the only country left that would be willing to go to war. I don’t agree, but that’s probably on account of me not having as much good faith in people as you seem to. I don’t think in their minds it’s a matter of obedience to authority. It’s a matter of stopping an enemy. Most countries are willing to get behind that idea.

As you say I don’t see this ending well for Trump and everyone else, but I also think he’ll make sure to blame everything else as much as possible before going down so he can keep his savior persona intact and sadly many will believe him still.

@Reject On that we do agree. He will most assuredly take everyone down with him as he has done in the past... whether it was his multiple (6) business bankruptcies, his failed marriages (at least 2, possibly 3 from appearances), and his broken promises (too numerous to count).

I don't think Russians will be willing to go to war... Putin, yes. The majority of Russians, no. The educated ones, next to none. Countries need people to go to war and my observations are that while people do have pride in their nations, they are not as willing to go to war for the honour of it as in the past to defend the ego of their leader. World War 1 could not occur today. World War 2 could, but that's not the dynamic in play here... at least not yet.

Sure, Russians are fighting in Ukraine, but it has taken several years of fighting instead of the the 3 days Putin proclaimed his "special mission" would take. Now, they are using up "expendable" North Koreans. My point is it won't be a simple matter of political leaders ordering war like in the past. Maybe modern civilians have become soft. Maybe they have become jaded. Regardless, they are not going to be ordered into the war machine, like pigs being led to slaughter. Leaders who dream of committed soldiers hopping to the degree like in prior centuries will find their leadership stripped away from them. Even Kim Jung Un knows he can only go so far. And, he's got trained zombies to order around.

@MarkPaul I don’t think Russia would have lost hundreds of thousands if most of those Russians didn’t want to fight. The majority support the war. They’re convinced of the propaganda telling them they’re stopping genuinely bad people like Nazis. Other countries can do this too. It’s a matter of convincing them they’re stopping a greater evil. Russians actually believe in the threat of NATO expansion among other things. Even as an invading force, if you can spin a narrative of self defense, people will fight.

This global trade war we’re having can escalate. WWIII would certainly look different. Something like NATO vs BRICS I think, but most of it will be countries supporting each other without directly getting into conflict as we’ve seen with how much support Russia and Ukraine are getting from the rest of the world. All it takes is push coming to shove with another country feeling threatened enough. People don’t die for the ego of their leader or zealous nationalism. That’s the minority. The majority were told they have to because there’s no choice. If they don’t they’ll eventually lose their country to these horrible monsters. That’s obviously not the case, but they don’t need to know that. If they did no one would fight.

@Reject If the Russian people really wanted to fight, they wouldn't have lost so many soldiers against an inferiour army... even supported with weapons by the EU and the USA. And, they wouldn't be into a multi-year operation that was presented as a 3-day walk in the park.

The global trade war could escalate. So could a soccer match. But, not into a world war. Again, people are too jaded fall for the platitude of "dying for your honour." I'm not talking about soldiers; I'm referring to the thousands upon thousands of citizens it would take and for a World War to eat up.

@MarkPaul Russian soldiers have lower morale for sure, but that’s because of the poor way they’re treated. Not because they weren’t willing to fight. Most were. Citizens definitely support the war though not knowing any better.

Citizens in general will support most things if it doesn’t directly affect them in any obvious way. Just look at how many followers Trump has. I’ll say it one last time though. It’s not a matter of honor. Fanaticism or anything like that. It’s war propaganda and leading your people to believe things that aren’t true. That’s what makes them fight and that can be done even in a country as free with information as the US is. Imagine places like China where most things are censored. We’ve already seen it in Russia. Before that war no one would have believed it would happen and now we’re living in a time where it has. You can say it won’t happen, but so did everyone before it did. It’s better to be prepared than blind to possibilities no matter how unlikely they seem.

@Reject Being prepared for what is most likely is the basis for contingency planning. That's smart. Trying to be prepared for any and every situation out of panic is a waste of time and usually turns deadly.

If Russians have low morale that is a strong indicator they are not enthusiastic about fighting. There has been a great brain-drain of educated people from Russian society because so many people don't want to fight in a made-up war to appease Putin's ego. The ones who have stayed, by-and-large, know what is going on. Russians are not as "trained" as North Koreans and they know what Putin is even if they are silent for their own self-survival. That doesn't mean they will willingly engage in nuclear war. They, more than most people know the aftereffects of nuclear fallout.

War propaganda is formidable, but it's not invincible and for my last time, the modern generation is not as obedient to authority as past generations. From a social perspective, there is good and bad to that, but when it comes to war it means it won't be as easy as in decades past to get volumes and volumes of new recruits to sign up to be killed. That doesn't mean everyone would be immune, but the vast majority that a World War would demand, would not rush in to do a fool's errand.

Putin has been talking about reconstituting the Soviet Union for a long time. The troubling thing with their invasion of Ukraine is it's been obvious he was heading in that direction and could have been stopped before he hit the ground. The same with Cry-Baby-trump. It's not like he sprung a tariff war out of nowhere. He's been fixated on the idea like an addict on crack cocaine or heroin and has been talking about for quite some time... especially during the campaign. It's not really a surprise. That is something for which preparation should have been done. The USA Congress could have limited the tariff authority a president had. Other nations could have made plans to preempt the impact. That kind of preparation would have been smart... if it had been done. Serious preparations for a World War would only waste resources that can be better utilized on more likely world events.

@MarkPaul Doing anything out of panic is a bad idea. Good thing I’m not talking about that. Yeah, I also don’t think most Russians would support nuclear war either. It’s good I wasn’t saying that. I agree. People don’t care about authority as much as they did in the past. People aren’t as religious as they were back then. So I’m happy I wasn’t talking about that either. We already said World War III would look different too, so I wasn’t talking about the massive recruiting campaigns any of the previous World Wars needed. I think that was the last of the straw men. There were definitely early signs for both Putin and Trump about bad things they were planning, yet it all happened. Mostly on account of everyone thinking it wouldn’t because it was deemed “unlikely” just like a World War is. So hey, don’t worry. I’m sure the resources won’t be wasted as a result.

@Reject So, all the things you were talking about, you're not talking about. Got it. Good discussion.

@MarkPaul Nah, I was just never talking about the many things you brought up that were related in some way, but not at all what I was saying.

@Reject Oh, well then by all means let's summarize and sanitize...

1. Not Panic. Not Russian support for nuclear war.

2. Again, no panic here.

3. No mass recruiting intended by this.

4. This must be different from previous wars.

Based on this premise and your logic path, you must be advocating for the world to start planning now for the world be carved up into pieces for Putin and Cry-Baby-trump to own because it could happen and no one is expecting it to happen. So, by all means, planning should commence immediately.

Tbh, it just seems panic-induced to me. That's not contingency planning... that's panic based on emotion and 0.0 thinking because it is unlikely to happen whereas an invasion into Ukraine and a nonsensical tariff war was likely to happen.

@MarkPaul
1. Yes. I didn’t say Russians would support nuclear war. I said they supported the war. Not the nuclear version.

2. You mentioned panic when preparing for a World War III. I never said that had to be done in panic.

3. Correct. No mass recruiting required. At least I wouldn’t think so in the next World War if it were to happen.

4. I’d say that’s the same as previous World Wars to some degree, but would be much more prevalent in the third one due to all the changes in how information is spread and controlled.

No, I don’t think the world should plan to be carved up… blah blah blah. I think every country should plan for war of any kind. That’s how you prevent it in the first place.

Sorry that all seems panic induced to you, but I couldn’t be more calm in saying it. Many people before the Russo-Ukrainian War didn’t believe it would happen. Same goes for tariffs. In hindsight it’s easy to say these things were likely, but people just didn’t think it was beforehand and that’s why people weren’t ready. Only themselves to blame for that. You prepare for anything. Not in panic, or because of likelihoods, but just because that’s smart to do. People underestimating likelihoods is why we’re all here now. So I won’t be one of them.

@Reject No need to apologize for choosing to panic and then denying it, but talking about Russia getting "desperate enough they might resort to nukes..." and then denying it seems like panic by any measured definition of the word, "panic." Did Putin threaten using nuclear bombs? Yes. Did he mean he would actually do it? Most likely no? And, most likely because there wouldn't be enough support to do it. And, first and foremost he wants to remain in power to build his personal wealth. So, should the world start preparing for an imminent nuclear war because of his words? Absolutely not. Now, to be kind to you, perhaps you meant to say you agree with the everyday preparedness the world does dating back to the 1960's to avoid nuclear war, in general. But, in case you didn't and we take your words to mean as they were written, believing Russians are going to support nuclear war is a panic-based sentiment. In case you don't know... Putin is not going to personally launch and deploy nuclear weapons. It would have to be done by Russian people... and possibly North Korean proxies. So, yes Russians would need to support nuclear war for your dream to materialize in reality.

The very fact you think World War 3 is a very real possibility, is behaviour illustrating panic. For example, a woman who leaving home to go to the market, preparing she will be raped, as Cry-Baby-trump once described daily life in the USA during the Biden Administration, is a promotion of panic. In that same way, expecting World War 3 is likely to occur is panic-based, no matter how much you want to sane-wash it. In the scheme of all things that could happen, could that happen? Sure. Taking into account 21st century standards, is it likely to happen? No.

In case you don't know what you are saying, "I don’t think in their minds it’s a matter of obedience to authority. It’s a matter of stopping an enemy," you literally are talking about people being obedient to authority after being manipulated to think they have to stop an enemy. In human society based on human history, we call that recruitment. Leaders use psychological manipulation techniques to recruit followers.

Let me clear something up in a way you can understand. I didn't indicate your said you believed the world should be carved up. To accentuate the logic you are using to defend your panic, I came up with a scenario to illustrate how extending your logic leads to a ridiculous conclusion that highlights the flimsiness of your logic. See now?

SOME people didn't believe Putin would invade Ukraine. But EU and USA intelligence reporting that was purposefully made public clearly established he was preparing to move into Ukraine in a hostile way. So, your view that "many people didn't believe it would happen" is just one more panic-driven and emotion-filled interpretation of what you choose to believe is happening, not supported by facts. Look, I have no quarrel with you for choosing panic over critical thinking and choosing emotion over logic to form your interpretations of events. I'm just noticing that is what you are doing and denying.

Again, contingency planning is a valid, important, and wise part of strategic planning. To be clear, I am in favour of it. But, the very nature of proper contingency planning is to divide those factors that are likely to happen from those that are not. Trying to have a contingency for EVERYTHING, like the potential of 2 maniacs would carve up the world, is not productive, sensible, or panic-free.

@MarkPaul If you’re going to assume things about me such as panic, and then say I’m denying it after I tell you I never panicked, then why are you still talking to me? Clearly you don’t respect me enough to even believe what I have to say. Is it just because you love to hear yourself talk?

@Reject Why are you so defensive when it comes to denying a written record of what you said? That is something I would really like to know. In my study of human behaviour, people who are prone to panic, and especially when they are "in" a panic, will always deny they are acting out of panic.

@MarkPaul I would tell you I’m not being defensive, but you would likely say that I am just like how you say I’m panicking when I’m not. The reason I didn’t engage with the rest of what you had to say is because it’s pointless. If you don’t give credit to the things I have to say, wouldn’t my words be wasted? I don’t mind really, but I also don’t care for one-sided conversations either.