The French president said he was open to discuss the use of France's nuclear weapons for European defense. His remarks have attracted criticism from political opponents in Paris.
A more closely integrated military would actually be good for the environment, eliminating redundancies would lower emissions, and shared R&D would accelerate the development of more climate friendly technologies, with the knock-on effect of augmenting civilian research as well.
Genuinely can’t tell if you’re taking the piss or not…
Saying a more closely integrated military would be good for the environment is like saying electric bomber planes would be better because their per bomb CO2 emissions would be lower…
I couldn’t be more of a pacifist, but the fact is that there is a conquering imperialist power with the stated intention of undoing the European experiment right next to us, and we can’t afford to not have a military capable of guarding against that. That means we do need to spend money, work, and yes, emissions on that. It sucks, we could spend all that on much more positive goals.
And yes, if we are going to build hundreds to thousands of tanks, let’s figure out how to build them together to one standard so that we don’t have to support a logistics nightmare to keep that afloat. Or if we take R&D, what if we could come together and get the FCAS thing going, so we don’t need to fly hundreds to thousands of jets, flying and fuelling a smaller number of more advanced planes instead.
And it is actually what you are saying, we have to operate on the assumption that Russia will park thousands of tanks on our borders and start rolling in. That means we will have to, and we will drop thousands of bombs on them. The question is, what will preparing for that cost in terms of for example emissions, and how many people will die until we can. If we don’t prepare as if this is real in a decade, maybe sooner, then it will definitely be real.
If you want to argue this, go, be my guest, buy a ticket to Moscow, and try to tell Putin why this is going to be bad for all of us and the planet. I doubt you will be able to convince him.
You talk about geopolitical futures with a definitive certainty that is impossible to get in any discipline. Oh wait, there is one, it’s called climate science and you ignore completely how we blow up our civilization at the moment. We are currently the ones blowing it up, not (just) Putin. When we get shortages of food and repeated droughts, fires and floods, it is our fault. Don’t you dare point toward Putin for this failure.
Take a long look in the mirror. The European experiment is gobbling up the ressources of three Earths and rising, we are hit most by temperature changes and we might turn off our gulf stream heating in the next decades. The European experiment is a climate experiment that leaves the stable basis of the last 10000 years for good soon.
Pointing to external threats to unite behind empty nationalist ideology is an old diversion tactic and it’s going to bite us in the ass. People vote more and more for reality-denying far right parties because everything seems more important than to secure our future sustainably. Arming up is a symptom of shortages and apocalypse, not of civilization.
I don’t think we’re in the ressource fight apocalypse yet and we should do everything to avoid getting there, starting with stopping the use of fossil fuels immediately. How can we convince anyone of stopping the cycle of death if we are the ones most guilty?
Ukraine unfortunately became a reminder that nuclear weapons are still required for the safety of a nation. Ukraine gave theirs up after the crumble of the Sovjet Union for assurances of independence and sovereignty by other nations, including russia. Since russia disrespected these guarantees, they showed they can’t be trusted and every nation that does not want to be attacked by russia will henceforth need nuclear deterrent. It’s unfortunate and sad, but there is no future for nuclear disarmament while russia still has nukes.
You can say the same about the US. Nuclear armament seems to be the most effective way to avoid getting bombed or invaded by the US. Iran is still figuring out whether to become the next Afghanistan/Iraq or North Korea.
What there is a future for is nuclear disarmament in the US and in Russia because it’s kinda pointless to kill the whole planet a hundred times over. Every other country needs to be persuaded and needs to trust both the US and Russia. Tough luck, I agree. But there was a time when this was possible in the 80s under no less ruthless imperialist leaderships.
There are already nukes in Europe, specifically in France and the UK. Maybe the Netherlands should get some too to avoid getting invaded when US war criminals are put on trial.
Sure let’s explode civilization in a speerun before we boil alive.
A more closely integrated military would actually be good for the environment, eliminating redundancies would lower emissions, and shared R&D would accelerate the development of more climate friendly technologies, with the knock-on effect of augmenting civilian research as well.
Genuinely can’t tell if you’re taking the piss or not…
Saying a more closely integrated military would be good for the environment is like saying electric bomber planes would be better because their per bomb CO2 emissions would be lower…
I couldn’t be more of a pacifist, but the fact is that there is a conquering imperialist power with the stated intention of undoing the European experiment right next to us, and we can’t afford to not have a military capable of guarding against that. That means we do need to spend money, work, and yes, emissions on that. It sucks, we could spend all that on much more positive goals.
And yes, if we are going to build hundreds to thousands of tanks, let’s figure out how to build them together to one standard so that we don’t have to support a logistics nightmare to keep that afloat. Or if we take R&D, what if we could come together and get the FCAS thing going, so we don’t need to fly hundreds to thousands of jets, flying and fuelling a smaller number of more advanced planes instead.
And it is actually what you are saying, we have to operate on the assumption that Russia will park thousands of tanks on our borders and start rolling in. That means we will have to, and we will drop thousands of bombs on them. The question is, what will preparing for that cost in terms of for example emissions, and how many people will die until we can. If we don’t prepare as if this is real in a decade, maybe sooner, then it will definitely be real.
If you want to argue this, go, be my guest, buy a ticket to Moscow, and try to tell Putin why this is going to be bad for all of us and the planet. I doubt you will be able to convince him.
You talk about geopolitical futures with a definitive certainty that is impossible to get in any discipline. Oh wait, there is one, it’s called climate science and you ignore completely how we blow up our civilization at the moment. We are currently the ones blowing it up, not (just) Putin. When we get shortages of food and repeated droughts, fires and floods, it is our fault. Don’t you dare point toward Putin for this failure.
Take a long look in the mirror. The European experiment is gobbling up the ressources of three Earths and rising, we are hit most by temperature changes and we might turn off our gulf stream heating in the next decades. The European experiment is a climate experiment that leaves the stable basis of the last 10000 years for good soon.
Pointing to external threats to unite behind empty nationalist ideology is an old diversion tactic and it’s going to bite us in the ass. People vote more and more for reality-denying far right parties because everything seems more important than to secure our future sustainably. Arming up is a symptom of shortages and apocalypse, not of civilization.
I don’t think we’re in the ressource fight apocalypse yet and we should do everything to avoid getting there, starting with stopping the use of fossil fuels immediately. How can we convince anyone of stopping the cycle of death if we are the ones most guilty?
I mean, I get what you’re saying and all… buuuut the CO2/bomb WOULD be great on an electric bomber.
Ukraine unfortunately became a reminder that nuclear weapons are still required for the safety of a nation. Ukraine gave theirs up after the crumble of the Sovjet Union for assurances of independence and sovereignty by other nations, including russia. Since russia disrespected these guarantees, they showed they can’t be trusted and every nation that does not want to be attacked by russia will henceforth need nuclear deterrent. It’s unfortunate and sad, but there is no future for nuclear disarmament while russia still has nukes.
You can say the same about the US. Nuclear armament seems to be the most effective way to avoid getting bombed or invaded by the US. Iran is still figuring out whether to become the next Afghanistan/Iraq or North Korea.
What there is a future for is nuclear disarmament in the US and in Russia because it’s kinda pointless to kill the whole planet a hundred times over. Every other country needs to be persuaded and needs to trust both the US and Russia. Tough luck, I agree. But there was a time when this was possible in the 80s under no less ruthless imperialist leaderships.
There are already nukes in Europe, specifically in France and the UK. Maybe the Netherlands should get some too to avoid getting invaded when US war criminals are put on trial.