Should we be worried about war

[Seasidesand76]

Seen a lot in the news about Ukraine using USA missiles against Russia. I've been thinking more along the lines that it won't start a WW3 and will resolve at some point without the UK getting directly involved in war. But there seems to be more and more tension and threats of an all out war recently.

Should we be worried about WW3? I haven't been prepping or anything but does make me wonder if I should start getting a few days worth of food in case. At the same time I don't want to go down the prepper hole and start getting over the top.

It is not yet or not as publicly acknowledged…

And here is the brochure in English. I received mine in the post today.

rib.msb.se/filer/pdf/30874.pdf

Ah, well thanks for shifting off the ZERO possibility Russia will directly attack stance and adopting the more moderate stance of not likely.

That looks really interesting!

Didn't. You need to work on your comprehension. Saying that there's much more scope to do one thing than another doesn't preclude the possibility that the less likely thing has odds of zero.

Still, good to see you shift off the claim that you mentioned indirect attacks before I brought it up, when you actually didn't.

It is. It’s all common sense, but it’s great that they send out the brochure to all households. And that they are clear about it not being just advice, but it’s our responsibility to contribute. You can’t just think about yourself.

I totally agree and gave a personal donation to Ukraine (united24). I read somewhere if US citizens donated $100 then it might make up for American withdrawal. I’m not American but still looking with nervousness from the UK.

incidentally, I asked on reddit where best to donate and got heavily downvoted/mocked/people tried to persuade me it was useless … so I’m wondering what interests are looking out for posts on Ukraine right now

If Russia beat the Ukrainian they won't stop there. Putin is a fanatic and will want Moldova next. I think Biden could have authorised these missile strikes sooner. I'm hoping Trump can cede a peace deal something like Russia can keep the Crimea and Ukrainian won't join NATO for 10-15 years and Russia withdraws.

That's a really good pamphlet! The communal Scandi ethos is what we should utilise here.

Always worth asking that question when it comes to Russia. The level of state sponsored misinformation from them is such that you can never assume you're just talking to a random fuckwit.

I have lived in a few places with insecurity and now in mainland Europe, closer to Russia. The advice has always been to keep several weeks of food, water and medication. Food most people probably have, though think about power shortages. Critical medication makes sense, even in case of more general supply issues with pharmacies. A few crates of water and some 5l bottles makes sense (put them under the sink and you will hardly know they are there).

And it is certainly not about stockpiling, as often is mentioned on here. It’s about being able to help yourself and others, together. If the shit hits the fan there might be nothing to do, but there are many scenarios in between. We all have a responsibility to not bury our heads in the sand.

There's nothing you or me personally can do about it if/when some sort of warmongering might reach us. So I just think, I'm not in the military, I don't support war, I'm not an arms dealer, I'm a nice person, I want peace for everyone. That's all I can do really. A lot of my friends still go to marches etc. but I can't due to health issues. Not that I've ever been that political.

The 'components that rot' as you put it include the initiator - you know that funky little golfball right at the centre of the fission core that provides a burst of thermal neutrons right at the critical moment and requires the entire fission core to be dismantled to replace. It uses Po-210 - the same stuff as in older models of smoke alarms, and needs to be replaced with the same (or higher) frequency. Russian warheads still use these.

Additionally, warheads require significant quantities of tritium (either as a booster or as a primary fuel in older fusion designs) and with a half life of only 12 years this also requires continuous replenishment. This is why the UK MOD has to regularly transport warheads to and from RNAD Coulport to AWE - each warhead has to go back to AWE once or twice a year for a wee refresher.

The 7000 employees at AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield aren't all just sitting around playing Dobble.

Classic mumsnet 😂

It isn’t my comprehension that is lacking at all,

you said first:
”Russia were attacking the UK indirectly long before any of the events you mention, and they're not stupid enough to attack in a conventional military way. The odds of them doing that to us are exactly the same as to the US. Zero.”

then when I pointed out it isn’t likely but could happen you doubled down
”The odds of Russia directly attacking us, as opposed to the more realistic and for them sensible approach of amping up the sort of thing they've been doing for years, are objectively zero.”

then you decide to agree with me that it’s not ZERO, but simply less likely
”There is indeed a limit to indirect attacks, but we've nowhere near reached that yet. Hence there's much more scope to do that than there is to attack directly, and it's much more likely and less risky for Russia.”

and now you’ve written some nonsense that saying something is less likely is the same as saying zero possibility (no it’s really not the same).

I never claimed I had mentioned indirect attacks at all, this is the 3rd bait and switch you’ve done. You objected to my initial post saying I was worried about direct attack by saying that Russia has been indirectly attacking us for years. I clarified I was talking about direct attacks and thought it was clear. You then said I didn’t mention direct attacks, which I had. Then you change it to say you had called me out on failing to mention indirect attacks, when you had not, now you are saying I claimed to have mentioned indirect attacks and you were calling me out on that.

It’s a full time job to keep up your different universes. Obviously we are having a failure to communicate here, and it really isn’t down to comprehension on my part.

I don't worry about a world war at the moment. The media loves scare mongering. I have dc in the armed forces so I have to switch off from it or I would go mad with worry.
I also think war is about one country wanting to invade & control another country. What would be the point in dropping a nuclear bomb that would completely destroy several countries. What would there be left to control.

This. Get an allotment or grow in your garden. Guerilla plant fruit bushes and trees.

Are civilians not expected to help out? I’m not in the military, but I know I’d be ordered to stay put at work if there was a war. And I know that our car would no longer be our car if it was needed for something else.

You can have a world war without nuclear weapons. Not sure why people think you can’t have WWIII without them.

Trump is sure he has the answers. But the Russians will only retaliate and attack the US. So will it really solve anything?

Because the minute it looks existential for one side they get used. It's about the risk

It's only down to poor comprehension and expression on your part.

You didn't mention indirect attacks at all in the first post of yours that I quoted. Then when I pointed this out in relation to the UK, you said you'd been clear you were talking about a direct attack. In fact you hadn't made the direct/indirect distinction in relation to us at all, and you showed no understanding that Russia has actually been attacking the UK for years.

In response to this you wrote 'I did actually' which meant you were saying you had made the distinction clear. This directly contradicts what you're saying here.

And it's plain fact that saying one thing is more likely than another thing doesn't mean there's any chance of the less likely thing happening. Some chance is higher than a zero chance. Yes, it really is.

TLDR- this is your fault. Also your underlying argument is poor even if you'd done a better job of making it.

No, that’s not why they’ve been used and there have been several existential threats to countries where they were not used.

Collapse of the USSR- not used
Bombing of Japan- not an existential threat to the US

Maybe in 1930s but it’s far too dangerous now given the stakes for the entire world.