Skip Navigation
Remote View
Solarpunk @slrpnk.net
AEMarling @slrpnk.net

military-industrial complex is a supervillain of causing the climate crisis

In short, US residents need to shut it down before Genocide Joe escalates us to World War III.

26 comments

  • So the image is about climate and solar power. What is this crappy editorialization in the title and synopsis? If you really think Biden is “genocide Joe” hurtling towards ww3 you’re going to love the return of Trump. Why not discourage some more D voters.

  • Strongly disagree.

    Disarmament is feasible (and very smart, because war is a terrible waste) if the other side is understanding and willing. In the 1980-ties, the USSR under Gorbachev was willing to mutually reduce nuclear weapons. Gorbachev also ended the attempt to make Afghanistan into a Soviet satellite state and loosened the rules in the Soviet bloc enough for most of Eastern Europe to leave the bloc. Russia under Putin has not shown any willingness to widthdraw or disarm. In fact, it is making desperate attempts to restart all the Soviet military industries, double down and overwhelm Ukraine.

    (for those unaware: the war is Gaza is statistically a gang shootout compared to the war in Ukraine, the intensity differs so much that I'm not even addressing it - it's practically over, Hamas attacked and lost)

    NATO countries are of course increasing military production - ironically at such a leisurely pace that EU has been able to supply some 0.3 million of the 1 million shells promised to Ukraine, while North Korea has been able to hand 2 million shells to Russia. I don't see a case for claiming that NATO is arming too fast. I see a case for claiming that NATO is arming ridiculously slow, at a pace which might allow Russia to force an unfavourable deal on Ukraine.

    I would predict: if Putin wins in Ukraine, or gets considerable parts of Ukraine as war spoils, in a decade's time, the next war will be Russia vs. Eastern Europe. Most of the warring parties will be NATO members then. And indeed, those countries (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria) - they have all rapidly raised their military production and purchases.

    About escalation: so far, all the long-range offensive weapons supplied by NATO have come with the strict condition that they may not be fired at Russian territory, and Ukraine has respected that - firing them only at occupied Ukrainian territory. Not a single ATACMS or Storm Shadow has landed in a Russian nuclear bunker, not to mention a seat of government. Ukraine is using Western missiles to shoot at its own (occupied) territory, hardly an escalation.

    (a side note: Ukrainian-made drones do land in Russia regularly, mostly destroying aircraft that would bomb Ukraine - and World War 3 has not broken out because of that)

    To finish up, I'd like to point out that the US is not even scheduled to give airplanes to Ukraine. The F-16 planes are being given by Denmark and the Netherlands.

    P.S.

    What's the rationale for calling Biden "Genocide Joe"? If that's an appropriate nickname, what do we call heads of state who start an actual war? :o

    P.P.S.

    Problems have differing levels of urgency. Wars tend to have the highest. Several EU countries have indeed been forced to scale back their climate plans because they don't have enough money to make the green transition and help Ukraine defend against Russia at the same time. The rise in interest rates has also contributed - it's harder to finance projects with a loan. However, they have also made incredibly fast pace at curbing their use of Russian oil and gas. Ironically, by proving what a fine seller Russia is ("run for the hills" grade of fine), Putin has contributed greatly to the transition off fossil fuels. Once he's deposed, tried and jailed, he should get a medal for that. :)

  • I assume Genocide Joe refers to Biden? He's not the one saying he won't sign a budget that doesn't fund the IDF.

    And given our two-party system, our alternative is an autocratic fascist.

    As much as I appreciate anti-genocide sentiments and pushes towards sustainable energy, in the US we're not going to get officials into either without extremely radical change here in the states.

    Given Biden's position as a neo-liberal, his efforts on both fronts are better than we expected from him. (Though his nomination was worse than we expected from the Democratic party, but that is what we can expect from the lesser evil.)

  • If you want more context or won’t take my word on how militarism will kill is all, you can read this article.

    • The article is fine, and I second the recommendation to read it, but from the article to the slogan you present, things do not follow a logical path. Yes, war is both an incredibly expensive activity (diverting money that could be used) and a resource-intensive activity (the money goes into actual materials that almost surely destroy something or get destroyed) and an incredibly stupid activity (and it can snowball)...

      ...but the problem is that successful unilateral disarmament during a war tends to result in a situation called "defeat". If the defeat is not an attack being defeated, but defense being defeated, that is called a "conquest". Now, letting a conquest succeed has a historical tendency of the conqueror having more experience at conquest, and more resources to conquer with... which has, several times in history, lead to another conquest or a whole series of conquests. A regional war in Ukraine resulting in Ukraine being taken over by Russia has a high probability of producing:

      1. a bigger regional war later, in which Russia, using its own resources and those of Ukraine, proceeds to another country, gets into a direct conflict with NATO and then indeed there is a risk of a global war
      2. an encouraging effect after which China, noting that international cooperation against the agressor was ultimately insufficient, and deeming itself better prepared than Russia, decides that it can take Taiwan with military force

      However, a war ending with inability to show victory tends to produce a revolution in the invading country. For example, World War I produced a revolution in Russia and subsequently a revolution in Germany, with several smaller revolutions in between, empires collapsing and a brief bloom of democracy in Europe, before the Great Depression and the rise of fascism ate all the fruits. The Falklands War produced a revolution in Argentina. The Russo-Japanese war produced the 1905 near-revolution in Russia.

      It is better for Ukraine to not get conquered. It is better for Russia to be unable to conquer Ukraine. That result is also better for everyone around them. It's even better globally because it sets a precedent of large-scale cooperation defeating an agressive superpower, discouraging agressive superpowers from undertaking similar wars until memory starts fading again.

      Unfortunately, until we see indications that Russian society is getting ready to stop the war (this could involve starting negotiations on terms palatable to Ukraine, a change of leadership, a withdrawal, a revolution, etc)... the path to achieving that outcome remains wearing out the agressor: producing enough weapons and delivering them to Ukraine.

      Ultimately, both sides in a war wear each other down. The soldiers most eager to fight are killed soonest. The people most unwilling to get mobilized or recruited, and soldiers most unwilling to fight - they remain alive. If they are pressed forever, some day they will make the calculation: there are less troops blocking the way home than in the trenches of the opposing side. After that realization, they eventually tend to mutiny. Invading troops tend to do that a bit easier than defending troops, because they sense less purpose in their activity. In the long run, if nothing else happens, that will happen. There is just (probably, regrettably) no particularly quick shortcut to getting there.

26 comments