As I have previously said, "arms control" is another form of Russophobia, implying that Russia is The Threat when instead the arms build-up was at every step, a U.S. initiative. Thus, the U.S. could unilaterally disarm then the other nations, no longer suffering from U.S. Hegemony, will follow suit to save that expense to their economies. (From a "Boomer"!) https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/no-crocodile-tears-for-arms-control
Yes, Scott, we need to have this conversation. Sadly, the line between Virtual Reality and Reality has been, in my opinion, purposely blurred. Through no fault of their own, the younger Generation is living in a world of Virtual Reality. It is difficult for them to distinguish between what is actually happening in their lives to what they are being told is happening. Of course Russia is the "Forever Enemy". It is so important for people like you to do their best to wake up the Young Generation to help them to save themselves. Thank you, Scott!
I think there is potential in Gen Z. I also think the pro Palestine movement could be instrumental in the broader antiwar movement. The Mask off Maersk Campaign developed out of the Palestinian Youth Movement. For those who don't know, these were college students in Oakland who tracked shipping routes of weapons components headed for Israel. They have had some success in interrupting these routes and pushing for an arms embargo. They've also inspired movements in other states who are pushing back against the military industrial complex. If anybody is going to lead a movement on arms control, I would expect it would be these people.
Well done Scott. As a Boomer, I was hit in the heart and the gut as well. There is no way we can will a nuclear war! You laid it out as loud and clear as can be done--short of the actual experience itself. I keep praying that the alliance between Trump and Putin is still 'the real deal' and they will find a way to take down the UK, EU, NATO... raising tariffs and cutting funding to the 66 international organizations Trump recently pulled us out of will help.
Scott, young people have no time to read history. Nor do they care about history. They care about now. The education gap is so huge that there is no way to fill the gap. And it is not just young people; it's the leaders of Europe as well. What you have seen and experienced about the end of the cold war and the dissolution of the USSR and the subsequent self-proclaimed winners is too much to absorb. They will just not believe that the US is in any way responsible, and even less Europe, for what is happening in Ukraine. Luckily there are some young people who are asking about the European Union and what its all about. And they do ask how can anyone support Israel. As for nukes, they don't know what nukes are.
Just one other thing I would add, in all our defence, but not as an excuse, is that us Boomers had the benefit of a media which was interested in letting us know the horrors of nuclear war - like you, I had that horror burnt into my brain through various films, TV shows, and public information propaganda, like the utterly useless Duck-and-Cover broadcasts, that even as a child seemed ridiculous, after seeing video of actual nuclear tests, and the horrors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and even the regular siren tests here in the UK served as a reminder of the imminent threat of Nuclear annihilation - today however that message has been weakened, and deliberately down-played, and for the most part, not impressed on the younger generations.
We need dedicated, public films and documentaries to scare the living shit out of people again - just as your situation, and that flash of reflected sunlight (I had a similar experience which brought home the fear) did for you, me and many other Boomers - I hate that feeling, but as you eloquently put it yourself Scott, that made you focus on what was important, and steeled you towards the future you took. Only fear, the real fear of these weapons can instil the right kind of fear to achieve what must be again done - and that can only be achieved by direct experience (not desirable) or by using today's technology in media, on every form of media, to drive home the message.
AI could serve a very useful purpose in this, to create super-realistic, non-jingoistic documentaries and films, highlighting EVERY aspect of Nuclear weapons usage - not just the flash, not just the big boom, but grotesque, real-life looking effects on masses of people and animals (all AI Generated, but to extremely high levels of reality) - only when people understand that what they are seeing could easily be them, those they love, and the infrastructure around them being effected by these things, will they gain an interest in arms control, and understand it is not a game.
They need to see people being vaporised, they need to see people, animals, families, friends, and infrastructure being effected by nukes at every stage - as we were subjected to - admittedly with us, imagination was the primary tool, along with visual and auditory stimulation, today's people are used to that, so will need to see the true horrors, not just the instant death - 'the lucky ones', but those who would be left, in very high detail - flesh stripping from peoples bones, and not in a Hollywood style, but as a documentary report film, as if it had really happened to the World, and in addition, it would need co-ordinated support from Military officials and Vets all over, to push home the idea that this is exactly what will happen if we don't have arms control.
I think my words, and your words alone are not enough, which is why I think a massive effort is required to not only finance this type of film, but to ensure that entire populations are essentially forced to watch them around the Globe - we don't need a return to the Cold War, we need a return of the right kind of fear, the kind of fear that motivated you and many of us to protest, and organise to have these weapons put under proper control - and that mechanism was arms treaties, which assured Mutually Assured Destruction - some thing which as a young man I thought to be utterly MAD, but came to appreciate, through your work, and others, was SANITY itself.
No one can unmake these weapons, even were the whole world to instantly forget how to make them, we as a species would again invent them, because they are possible. Only a God could prevent that, and for all the belief in the World, that has not stopped Mankind from making these weapons (and potentially worse to come). Only the very real fear, the very real threat of M.A.D. is enough to deter. Nuclear weapons work, and work extremely well, so long as they are capable, but unused in physical function - and so long as there is parity between those that have them, which means there must be enough to ensure categorically assured mutual destruction.
Blowing the entire world up once is more than enough. We do not need to be able to blow Earth up twice or more, just enough for once.
On a similar note, but slightly different track ...
On your Last Ask The Inspector, you were asked by Alex Lithium in Moscow, about Cobalt Nuclear weapons - from my understanding when I was young, I read that a Cobalt-salted Nuclear device was powerful enough to wipe out all life on Earth, and that both America and Russia had built one each, but then agreed to let them rot, under permanent guard, though even then I questioned why they didn't just dismantle them, rather than risk them accidentally going off - I suspect that there was an element of truth in this, but will never likely know whether this was entirely true. The idea behind this weapon, or so I read, was that it would ignite the oxygen in Earth's atmosphere at such a high temperature, that it would spread across the globe in a chain-reaction.
I have wondered a few times in my life about these alleged weapons - were they built as the ultimate weapon? i.e just two could ensure MAD, but then what would be the point of any military? and then there's the risk of accidental detonation - I know the USSR found out that a nuke over 50 megatons was pointless, as too big, and most of it's force goes into space, which to my mind means 'lesser' weapons, allow for strategy, whereas Cobalt-salted super-nukes (no missile needed, just detonated where they are) do not. If these weapons really did exist, their flaw was too much MAD. Current nukes, assure MAD only if their numbers can guarantee the elimination of each other's nukes, and have the advantage of being used tactically, even though this is exactly what they should not be used for - twice was enough, but is also the reason we need arms controls to ensure nuclear parity.
If those Cobalt Nukes really did exist, perhaps they were rejected as one side could just say to the other - if you so much as fart in my direction, the World Ends - maybe they guaranteed to much peace, and various military-industrial complexes saw zero profit in that. Regardless, we are where we are now, and all these ideas need to be inculcated into our youth, along with those who have forgotten what the stakes of human life on this planet are.
Perhaps what happened in Hawaii needs to happen everywhere - I think that day saw a lot of people suddenly become aware of their fragility, and what was truly important to them.
Yes, we need to have a talk. In my opinion, we have to start a basically talk about what we really want, for what we are here in that world.
The Boomers, Baby Boomers and the Millennials. We have something in common. We are people and in the rest of the world we have also people. We are human beings. We live into that beautiful spaceship earth.
Let's be better aware of this!
How else can we have a productive debate on disarmament and other issues that affect us?
You are right Scott, it is time for others to take up the challenge, and you are an excellent choice to teach them, and help them navigate the vagaries of international arms control, as well as imparting lessons as to why these weapons exist, and what they can and can't do.
Saying that, it is also down to us all to educate those around us, particularly our children and grand-children, using your example, and hard-won wisdom to get the message through - it isn't all on your shoulders, and our job of educating those younger than us is not over yet, but we do have to make the effort, as the things which distract Millennials, were created by our generation, and effect us all.
Does your public education include what Scott is talking about? The need for arms control to ensure parity, and a continued, equal reduction of Nukes, to maintain that parity till they are gone (M.A.D), or is your organisation just about no war, whilst being blind to reality?
Nuclear power plants and data-centres popping up everywhere are likely related, considering data-centre power requirements, and yes whilst they can likely supply weapons-grade enriched Uranium and Plutonium, are they those types of Nuclear power-plants? Not all Nuclear technology is bad, and linked to weapons production.
If your interest here is just to promote a desire to ban all Nuclear technology, as a means to no war, then you have missed the point Scott is trying to make. Is your protest solely about these nuclear plants producing, or being proposed to make fuel for nuclear weapons, or because they are Nuclear power stations?
I appreciate that you are a Millenial who has a fear of Nuclear Weapons, I just hope that is your message to other Millenials (and those who have forgotten, or never known that fear). Scott's message is very much about people like you appreciating that Nuclear Arms control, and weapons that can tip the balance of M.A.D are essential, and that you and other's need to take up the challenge of getting them re-implemented, quickly.
Be clear, I am not having a go at you, just wondering if you really understood what Scott is saying, particularly to you, and other Millenials.
We are currently threatening Russia with historically low numbers of Military, and due to those provocations, are asking to get nuked or invaded just to stop that behaviour. Our nukes aren't ours, and even with low numbers of Military personnel and weapons, that has not stopped us sending shit-loads of money and weapons to Ukraine, for the express purpose of defeating Russia.
If we did get ride of our nukes .. ahem ... America's nukes, which we have the 'privilege' of hosting in our subs at our great expense, that would not stop our 'glorious' leaders from provoking Russia, or destabilising other countries. If we had no weapons, there are plenty who would find it worthwhile to take revenge for all the shit this Island has caused, and is still causing.
I wish our country would behave and trade honestly, and give up interfering in other's business for vainglorious ideals, but going by today's attitudes of our 'leaders', the only thing that will change their behaviour, is their violent removal, which they believe will never happen, as they draw us closer and closer to nuclear annihilation (it really wouldn't dent Russia's stock to achieve that either).
I do agree that no one would want to invade and then have to administer this country for little to no reward, but to stop this country from being a Royal PIA, it would be worth it to some, even without a military the UK can cause havoc in markets and other countries through its networks of spooks.
The entire attitude of this country needs to change, abandon imperialistic ideals, and trade honestly with others, without trying to topple this government or that government, and accept a Multi-Polar World Order. Until that happens, a military force is still needed to dissuade smaller, vengeful nations from taking their quite justified revenge. It would also take decades of 'good' British behaviour, to get to the point where other nations no longer saw this country as a threat, before we could completely de-militarise, as you suggest.
As I have previously said, "arms control" is another form of Russophobia, implying that Russia is The Threat when instead the arms build-up was at every step, a U.S. initiative. Thus, the U.S. could unilaterally disarm then the other nations, no longer suffering from U.S. Hegemony, will follow suit to save that expense to their economies. (From a "Boomer"!) https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/no-crocodile-tears-for-arms-control
Yes, Scott, we need to have this conversation. Sadly, the line between Virtual Reality and Reality has been, in my opinion, purposely blurred. Through no fault of their own, the younger Generation is living in a world of Virtual Reality. It is difficult for them to distinguish between what is actually happening in their lives to what they are being told is happening. Of course Russia is the "Forever Enemy". It is so important for people like you to do their best to wake up the Young Generation to help them to save themselves. Thank you, Scott!
I think there is potential in Gen Z. I also think the pro Palestine movement could be instrumental in the broader antiwar movement. The Mask off Maersk Campaign developed out of the Palestinian Youth Movement. For those who don't know, these were college students in Oakland who tracked shipping routes of weapons components headed for Israel. They have had some success in interrupting these routes and pushing for an arms embargo. They've also inspired movements in other states who are pushing back against the military industrial complex. If anybody is going to lead a movement on arms control, I would expect it would be these people.
Well done Scott. As a Boomer, I was hit in the heart and the gut as well. There is no way we can will a nuclear war! You laid it out as loud and clear as can be done--short of the actual experience itself. I keep praying that the alliance between Trump and Putin is still 'the real deal' and they will find a way to take down the UK, EU, NATO... raising tariffs and cutting funding to the 66 international organizations Trump recently pulled us out of will help.
Scott, young people have no time to read history. Nor do they care about history. They care about now. The education gap is so huge that there is no way to fill the gap. And it is not just young people; it's the leaders of Europe as well. What you have seen and experienced about the end of the cold war and the dissolution of the USSR and the subsequent self-proclaimed winners is too much to absorb. They will just not believe that the US is in any way responsible, and even less Europe, for what is happening in Ukraine. Luckily there are some young people who are asking about the European Union and what its all about. And they do ask how can anyone support Israel. As for nukes, they don't know what nukes are.
You know I love ya, Scott, but PLEASE don't leave out Gen X! We are in the 45-60 age group and we need to step up too! While we still can!
Just one other thing I would add, in all our defence, but not as an excuse, is that us Boomers had the benefit of a media which was interested in letting us know the horrors of nuclear war - like you, I had that horror burnt into my brain through various films, TV shows, and public information propaganda, like the utterly useless Duck-and-Cover broadcasts, that even as a child seemed ridiculous, after seeing video of actual nuclear tests, and the horrors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and even the regular siren tests here in the UK served as a reminder of the imminent threat of Nuclear annihilation - today however that message has been weakened, and deliberately down-played, and for the most part, not impressed on the younger generations.
We need dedicated, public films and documentaries to scare the living shit out of people again - just as your situation, and that flash of reflected sunlight (I had a similar experience which brought home the fear) did for you, me and many other Boomers - I hate that feeling, but as you eloquently put it yourself Scott, that made you focus on what was important, and steeled you towards the future you took. Only fear, the real fear of these weapons can instil the right kind of fear to achieve what must be again done - and that can only be achieved by direct experience (not desirable) or by using today's technology in media, on every form of media, to drive home the message.
AI could serve a very useful purpose in this, to create super-realistic, non-jingoistic documentaries and films, highlighting EVERY aspect of Nuclear weapons usage - not just the flash, not just the big boom, but grotesque, real-life looking effects on masses of people and animals (all AI Generated, but to extremely high levels of reality) - only when people understand that what they are seeing could easily be them, those they love, and the infrastructure around them being effected by these things, will they gain an interest in arms control, and understand it is not a game.
They need to see people being vaporised, they need to see people, animals, families, friends, and infrastructure being effected by nukes at every stage - as we were subjected to - admittedly with us, imagination was the primary tool, along with visual and auditory stimulation, today's people are used to that, so will need to see the true horrors, not just the instant death - 'the lucky ones', but those who would be left, in very high detail - flesh stripping from peoples bones, and not in a Hollywood style, but as a documentary report film, as if it had really happened to the World, and in addition, it would need co-ordinated support from Military officials and Vets all over, to push home the idea that this is exactly what will happen if we don't have arms control.
I think my words, and your words alone are not enough, which is why I think a massive effort is required to not only finance this type of film, but to ensure that entire populations are essentially forced to watch them around the Globe - we don't need a return to the Cold War, we need a return of the right kind of fear, the kind of fear that motivated you and many of us to protest, and organise to have these weapons put under proper control - and that mechanism was arms treaties, which assured Mutually Assured Destruction - some thing which as a young man I thought to be utterly MAD, but came to appreciate, through your work, and others, was SANITY itself.
No one can unmake these weapons, even were the whole world to instantly forget how to make them, we as a species would again invent them, because they are possible. Only a God could prevent that, and for all the belief in the World, that has not stopped Mankind from making these weapons (and potentially worse to come). Only the very real fear, the very real threat of M.A.D. is enough to deter. Nuclear weapons work, and work extremely well, so long as they are capable, but unused in physical function - and so long as there is parity between those that have them, which means there must be enough to ensure categorically assured mutual destruction.
Blowing the entire world up once is more than enough. We do not need to be able to blow Earth up twice or more, just enough for once.
On a similar note, but slightly different track ...
On your Last Ask The Inspector, you were asked by Alex Lithium in Moscow, about Cobalt Nuclear weapons - from my understanding when I was young, I read that a Cobalt-salted Nuclear device was powerful enough to wipe out all life on Earth, and that both America and Russia had built one each, but then agreed to let them rot, under permanent guard, though even then I questioned why they didn't just dismantle them, rather than risk them accidentally going off - I suspect that there was an element of truth in this, but will never likely know whether this was entirely true. The idea behind this weapon, or so I read, was that it would ignite the oxygen in Earth's atmosphere at such a high temperature, that it would spread across the globe in a chain-reaction.
I have wondered a few times in my life about these alleged weapons - were they built as the ultimate weapon? i.e just two could ensure MAD, but then what would be the point of any military? and then there's the risk of accidental detonation - I know the USSR found out that a nuke over 50 megatons was pointless, as too big, and most of it's force goes into space, which to my mind means 'lesser' weapons, allow for strategy, whereas Cobalt-salted super-nukes (no missile needed, just detonated where they are) do not. If these weapons really did exist, their flaw was too much MAD. Current nukes, assure MAD only if their numbers can guarantee the elimination of each other's nukes, and have the advantage of being used tactically, even though this is exactly what they should not be used for - twice was enough, but is also the reason we need arms controls to ensure nuclear parity.
If those Cobalt Nukes really did exist, perhaps they were rejected as one side could just say to the other - if you so much as fart in my direction, the World Ends - maybe they guaranteed to much peace, and various military-industrial complexes saw zero profit in that. Regardless, we are where we are now, and all these ideas need to be inculcated into our youth, along with those who have forgotten what the stakes of human life on this planet are.
Perhaps what happened in Hawaii needs to happen everywhere - I think that day saw a lot of people suddenly become aware of their fragility, and what was truly important to them.
😀 😃
Thank you for sharing Scott.
Yes, we need to have a talk. In my opinion, we have to start a basically talk about what we really want, for what we are here in that world.
The Boomers, Baby Boomers and the Millennials. We have something in common. We are people and in the rest of the world we have also people. We are human beings. We live into that beautiful spaceship earth.
Let's be better aware of this!
How else can we have a productive debate on disarmament and other issues that affect us?
You are right Scott, it is time for others to take up the challenge, and you are an excellent choice to teach them, and help them navigate the vagaries of international arms control, as well as imparting lessons as to why these weapons exist, and what they can and can't do.
Saying that, it is also down to us all to educate those around us, particularly our children and grand-children, using your example, and hard-won wisdom to get the message through - it isn't all on your shoulders, and our job of educating those younger than us is not over yet, but we do have to make the effort, as the things which distract Millennials, were created by our generation, and effect us all.
Curious. No mention of Gen X. I guess they're just as bad as the boomers in Scott's estimation.
Does your public education include what Scott is talking about? The need for arms control to ensure parity, and a continued, equal reduction of Nukes, to maintain that parity till they are gone (M.A.D), or is your organisation just about no war, whilst being blind to reality?
Nuclear power plants and data-centres popping up everywhere are likely related, considering data-centre power requirements, and yes whilst they can likely supply weapons-grade enriched Uranium and Plutonium, are they those types of Nuclear power-plants? Not all Nuclear technology is bad, and linked to weapons production.
If your interest here is just to promote a desire to ban all Nuclear technology, as a means to no war, then you have missed the point Scott is trying to make. Is your protest solely about these nuclear plants producing, or being proposed to make fuel for nuclear weapons, or because they are Nuclear power stations?
I appreciate that you are a Millenial who has a fear of Nuclear Weapons, I just hope that is your message to other Millenials (and those who have forgotten, or never known that fear). Scott's message is very much about people like you appreciating that Nuclear Arms control, and weapons that can tip the balance of M.A.D are essential, and that you and other's need to take up the challenge of getting them re-implemented, quickly.
Be clear, I am not having a go at you, just wondering if you really understood what Scott is saying, particularly to you, and other Millenials.
We are currently threatening Russia with historically low numbers of Military, and due to those provocations, are asking to get nuked or invaded just to stop that behaviour. Our nukes aren't ours, and even with low numbers of Military personnel and weapons, that has not stopped us sending shit-loads of money and weapons to Ukraine, for the express purpose of defeating Russia.
If we did get ride of our nukes .. ahem ... America's nukes, which we have the 'privilege' of hosting in our subs at our great expense, that would not stop our 'glorious' leaders from provoking Russia, or destabilising other countries. If we had no weapons, there are plenty who would find it worthwhile to take revenge for all the shit this Island has caused, and is still causing.
I wish our country would behave and trade honestly, and give up interfering in other's business for vainglorious ideals, but going by today's attitudes of our 'leaders', the only thing that will change their behaviour, is their violent removal, which they believe will never happen, as they draw us closer and closer to nuclear annihilation (it really wouldn't dent Russia's stock to achieve that either).
I do agree that no one would want to invade and then have to administer this country for little to no reward, but to stop this country from being a Royal PIA, it would be worth it to some, even without a military the UK can cause havoc in markets and other countries through its networks of spooks.
The entire attitude of this country needs to change, abandon imperialistic ideals, and trade honestly with others, without trying to topple this government or that government, and accept a Multi-Polar World Order. Until that happens, a military force is still needed to dissuade smaller, vengeful nations from taking their quite justified revenge. It would also take decades of 'good' British behaviour, to get to the point where other nations no longer saw this country as a threat, before we could completely de-militarise, as you suggest.