@Stigma

Women (hysterics) don't connect to reality directly. They need a man to give meaning (frame). And that's a Tually such a luxurious thing to have. You remain a child for all your life.

That's the luxury the elite unwittingly grab for. Being freed from the practical issues of survival, they lose their grasp of reality. Then, just as a borderline who cuts herself in order to feel connection and relieve the existential dread, they go villain and do ranbom abusive things on their subjects.

That is, beside the "classical-marxist" analyses about profit etc, there are deeper psychological factor at play for the shit show we are witnessing.

And the bad thing is not only we are unlucky to be caught in the decline phase of the cycle, but that now there are neuclears.

This is the reason many have envisioned a wipe-out of the human species. These dynamics are built-in in the human species (probably as an evolved mechanism of expansion, from when the earth was still big enough: men saw the shit-show and moved to pristine lands).

Just as you can't really convince a woman it's for her children's best interests to be loving towards her husband, you can't convince the elite to not be assholes.

@adam-l Very interesting. Are these not pathologies though? I wouldn't expect a majority or even a significant minority, enough to destabilise the function of reality, to exist. Heck, maybe I'm wrong and to be well adjusted is the aberration? Which I suppose is answered by

They live an animalistic existence, following their "heart" (instincts), and they form the bulk of the followers of the perverse, psychopathic leaders.

this?

I dunno if you're familiar with the term min/maxing, but it speaks to the method of optimisation, mostly used in video games, where the greater scope of the game is sidelined for the results of the game. Trim away the fat, the experience and the process and hasten the result or reward. It seems society has been doing that to itself for some time, to a fault.

@SouthPoleProductions

Would Iran use it? We know that pakistan an north Korea didn't.

What would happen if X would try to nuke someone... factors:

what are the defences of destination (not everything reached the destination so retaliation possible) defensive capabilities that are not yet known but would be used how much facilities are infiltrated, - compliance level of staff to start nuclear war, maybe even self sabotage Trying to nuke someone and failing would be disastrous to the aggressor as of now, unless securing success.

I don't remember where, when, or from whom I picked this up, so take it for what it is. But apparently, the dominating nuclear weapons' wargame doctrine now (for all major players), is that the one with the best anti-nuclear defence is the one most likely to strike first. Hence, the "nuclear arms race" is now more about anti-ballistic weapons and such.

(The context was Russia being annoyed at NATO placing "missile shields" in Eastern Europe, with NATO arguing that they're "just shields".)

It used to be that everyone raced for the biggest, baddest, most numerous nukes, until it became pointless, because both sides could destroy eachother times over anyways. So it shifted into who can neutralise the other side's nuclear response to a first-strike; That party being the most likely to actually initiate a first-strike.