• @OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    581 year ago

    Goddammit, I do NOT want us to be propping up a war in Ukraine and fighting an actual war with China.

    • ElHexo [comrade/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      I believe State is keen on Ukraine (and maybe both), but the Pentagon is against the war in Ukraine because they want to shore up efforts to contain China.

      Kissinger and other realists are no doubt bashing their heads against desks because the masterstroke of the US foreign policy in the 60s and 70s was to support the Sino-Soviet split and ensure that China and Russia don’t ever find themselves with common goals.

    • @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      I wonder if we’d drop Ukraine if WWIII was starting. On the one hand, it’s WWIII, on the other hand maybe Russia is still a likely enemy?

          • @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            81 year ago

            You could argue about vassel-ness, but yes, the whole Western block would, and many poor nations that lean that way as well, like Vietnam or Palau.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              421 year ago

              Vietnam has some beefs with China, but I think it’s a bit more up in the air than that which way they’d turn since it’d be a real existential threat to them to militarily oppose China like that (plus they do have some productive deals with China).

              • @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                True, and I have no special insight into Vietnamese politics. In this scenario the US is also right there, though, and is stronger than China assuming no MAD.

                Vietnam and Palau should be read as examples only.

                • silent_water [she/her]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  331 year ago

                  stronger than China

                  citations-needed US not looking so hot after pissing money down the drain in forever wars for 2 decades.

                  • @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    That would be MAD. Unless they’re loaded with conventional warheads, in which case they’ll run out pretty early on because those missiles are expensive and the US has bottomless supplies to reply with.

      • ElHexo [comrade/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        The US is really only providing enough support to stall Russia and use up Ukrainian and Russian forces

        The real question is the commitment of US allies that have already provided materiel support for Ukraine.

        If it were WW3, the nukes would be flying and everyone in the northern hemisphere will be dead from famine in a year or two.

        • Awoo [she/her]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          everyone in the northern hemisphere will be dead from famine in a year or two.

          Don’t underestimate my will to grow and eat nothing but potatos. If I don’t die to bombs I’m making it through that shit.

          • ElHexo [comrade/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            The reduction in sun is an issue, but far worse are the -10 degree celsius temperature drops and the 50 percent less rain

            But potatoes are life, so I could see it

            • Awoo [she/her]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              That’s why you go for the potato. This fucker will grow under any conditions. I’m sure we could figure out a way to make up for some of the hours lost too, solar panels + battery + grow lights. Doesn’t need to run that much, just enough to make up the lost few hours. Maybe I should start investigating this now.

              • @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                I don’t know where you are, but they’re guaranteed to not grow below freezing. You could use a greenhouse, but you better get building now because you’re going to need an acre or two per person.

                • Awoo [she/her]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  An acre? I got 200 out of my 2x4 raised bed this year that I’ve been playing around with and like 170 last year. Why do you say two acres per person? Google tells me that you usually get 16-24 tonnes per acre.

                  Now, obviously yield will be down during this but I’m not expecting it to be that bad. Tents could be an option if temperatures do get bad it’s really not difficult to heat the tent we grow our palms in.

                  In all likelihood if the shit hits the fan I plan to organise a local group and we can commandeer the nearby golf course for land, while encouraging everyone to use what green space they have on top. Fuck allowing that land to go to waste in those conditions. This is all obviously assuming we don’t die in the nukes or radiation.

                  • @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    It’s been a while since I did the napkin math, but I thought that’s roughly what it came out to. How much time from seeding is that including? You need 2000 calories a day about, and there’s 365 days in a year, so that’s 730,000 calories per year.

                    PS Unless you’re near a missile silo, fallout is overhyped. Airbursts are the best way to damage light infrastructure and are pretty clean.

        • @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, “WWIII but no nukes yet” discussions are always a little bit iffy. Let’s try and keep a lid on things, guys.

          It seems like the actual NATO doctrine is to try and dip back out of a full-scale war before things get radioactive, in the already bad scenario that it happens, and the conventional military is basically there to provide certainty that there’s no benefit to escalating that far in the first place.

      • @Benghandhi@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        I assume NATO would officially swoop in and bomb the everliving fuck out of Russia’s fleet and fortified positions before diverting their attention elsewhere. Basically giving Ukraine a much easier path forward.

    • Nobody wants to have to defend free and sovereign nations such as Ukraine and Taiwan from agressive expansionist foreign powers like China and Russia. But here we are.