Force Protection Condition “Charlie”
Oh fuck.
Now shit is getting serious.
Is there some sort of tracker for the chance of WW3 breaking out?
World war II wasn’t called “world war II” until 1944, future events will dictate weather we’re already living in the early war.
There are Russian, North Korean, and Iranian troops fighting in Ukraine
There’s conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine
China is playing a game of brinkmanship with Taiwan and The Philippines.
If things heat up, future historians may place the beginning of world war 3 on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.The beginning would definitely be the Ukraine invasion, with things like Crimea and Syria pre-heating the oven, like Anschluss and the occupation of Sudetenland did before WW2.
As interesting it is to watch world history unfold, I would very much prefer the “boring” but prosperous times we had in Europe for the decades before - hope to go back to that soon.
the OG one would be the Doomsday Clock
The Doomsday Clock is a design that warns the public about how close we are to destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making. It is a metaphor, a reminder of the perils we must address if we are to survive on the planet.
When the Doomsday Clock was created in 1947, the greatest danger to humanity came from nuclear weapons, in particular from the prospect that the United States and the Soviet Union were headed for a nuclear arms race. The *Bulletin *considered possible catastrophic disruptions from climate change in its hand-setting deliberations for the first time in 2007.
The problem with the Doomsday clock idea is it’s very unspecific. The closer to midnight the closer we are to the end of the world but what does that mean? Who decides if we are 30 seconds or 35 seconds before midnight, what’s one second worth of Doom represent? For that matter what does 1 second after midnight look like (as far from Doom as possible), What’s that is that, a utopia, and how is that different to 3:00 a.m. or 2:00 p.m.
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims
This would be the opposite of a terrorist attack.
Would military not involved in combat zones be considered non-combatants?
They’re in the armed fighting group. Literally the military. Of course they are combatants. This doesn’t require being in direct combat.
Ukraine bombs Russian Drone factories. One could say nobody was a combatant. American Drone operators are bombing people half the world away from an airbase in Texas. One could say nobody was a combatant.
As long as they’re registered and active in the armed military group, actively working with the military that is in conflict with the group attacking them, and not having surrendered, they’re combatants. They can surrender any time such as… right now! And quit the military right now!
Attacking military bases only, and not civilian areas, is super based.
Were the workers in the drone factory combatants, because by your definition technically they were.
Yes… Yes they were. That’s the point. At least if they willingly joined that factory and weren’t forced to do it.
