[yor_on]

You should

[yor_on]

Wars are a good thing as seen from a hierarchy in trouble. It stops you from noticing, it stops you from complaining, you will be too busy  surviving. And if you don't act 'patriotic', whatever that may mean in such a situation, you become a traitor to the 'cause', whatever that will be, in a war situation the definitions for a traitorous behavior becomes very fluid. It's a perfect smokescreen for hierarchies inability, enabling them to stay.

What's worse with it is that it will be a 'free for al'l, everyone will pollute, nobody will care about global warming. It will probably count as being traitorous too :)

[yor_on]

A uprising is the opposite naturally, but considering the ones happening they get put down 'geopolitically'. Just read the papers and see who did what.

[yor_on]

And believe me or not. It's still not 'politics'. It's the system in action.

[yor_on]

Also called 'stability'

[yor_on]

You have to give Mr.Trump some credit there. When it came to Turkey, the Kurds, Russia etc he said it as it was. They were there to protect the oil :)  Not about freedom, liberty and democracy at all. Instead there for the fossil sources

Called 'realpolitik' or, of course, 'geopolitics'.

[yor_on]

Makes it somewhat of a joke doesn't it?
Global Warming I mean.

You can see that there are more important things in life :)
As oil, and gas.

[yor_on]

The people we put our trust in.
The 'leaders' of the herd.

[yor_on]

The same goes for China exploiting. Our new 'Climate leader' . As long as you don't understand that it is your beliefs and actions, or lack of actions, that empower such people they will have a free rein. And your world will look worse for it.

[yor_on]

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Trump will be as honest when it comes to the reasons for giving Saudi Arabia nuclear?  Saudi Arabia on the other tentacle have already been very clear on why they want it. Doesn't mean that Mr. Trump will agree on why, of course :)

gotta luv the herd.
Yep, a lot of bridges to sell here

[yor_on]

There's actually a further twist to that one. As if the ghost of Bolton stood by his side :)
What do you think Iran will do if Saudi Arabia gets their hands on nuclear power?

I don't have to guess, and neither need you.
And then we add in what Israel will think about it, who already has.

[yor_on]

It's definitely here, the scenario I talked about before.

[yor_on]

Believe it or not, there's actually a really decent thriller discussing a similar scenario, and a oldie to boot.  I recommended it before but I'll give you a link to the synopsis. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/paul-e-erdman/the-crash-of-79/

But in this case I think we have to exchange the diabolical Shah for 'geopolitics', and Mr. Trump?

[yor_on]

A similar scenario to what we see happening I better state, not to what I discuss. Not sure what Mr. Erdman would have thought of my ideas :)  Probably call it a pipe dream I guess.

'They will never get a move on boy, them lazy bas**''
ahem

[yor_on]

As we're into thrillers for the moment.
Try 'Relic' by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child

And remember to enjoy the detective involved..
Hopefully they have written more since I read that one.
=

syntax

[yor_on]

Well, I'm not the only one worried it seems.

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/

[yor_on]

Maybe we should call it Mr. Trump signing them up for a suicide pact?

And as soon the first nuclear weapon has been used Pandora's box will be open. And you will finally understand the difference between Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and modern nuclear armament. You can find a graphic of the yields further back in this essay.

[yor_on]

By that I mean that the military will have crossed a line that hasn't been stepped over since the second world war. Even though we can assume that Iran and Saudi Arabia won't be sophisticated in their first tries, we can't assume the same about Israel. And neither about USA, China and Russia. It will be a different world and global warming will become secondary to this.

[yor_on]

And then we have India and Pakistan of course. It's a very stupid scenario created by very adolescent 'leaders', most probably thinking of it as some wild west movie. Like kids getting their hands on live grenades, wanting to see if they work. And the country making this possible is USA.

[yor_on]

Maybe we should look at it as a ultimate bribe, to a country that can afford everything else, instead? And a way to create a new 'police force' with some real power, protecting our western need of fossil sources. And from Saudi Arabia's view that lives by the old testament, sort of, it will indeed give them a lot of clout. Mr. Trump cutting through the Gordian knot, freeing American soldiers from that part of the world..

And if you believe that to work I happen to have yet another bridge for sale.
=

Another possibility is the one where we don't want to be the ones introducing nuclear bombs, giving their construction away to states known for their rigid thinking, well knowing that the temptation for such a state to prove its righteousness  will open for their use. And after that Iran will be in a very perilous state, no matter if it 'won' or not as the ways of warfare has changed. Wasn't it  Gen. Douglas MacArthur that wanted to make Korea into a parking lot by the use of nuclear weapons?