Democrats Don't Perceive Dangers of Nuclear War

 I throw leftovers to birds and squirrels in order not to leave anything that a brown bear would find interesting. Yet the squirrels and birds become trusting after a while and throw the birds are wild they act as if they were pets. That is they lose a sense of risk and danger. democrats are like that these days in regard to the risk of war with Russia and China, maybe Pakistan and North Korea as well (who might decide to toss a few our way when the going gets going). I wanted to comment about this phenomena.

Maybe its because of the copious dope used and quasi-legalized by the boomer generations and the quietude of gen x'ers that grew up in the long shadow of their more numerous and confused parent's generation. They too easily accepted a neo decadent whirlpool with conflicting and paradoxical, ineffective values where morality could be said to exist. Is it possible that during the collapse of the meaning of marriage and its expropriation by homosexuals in order to reallocate health care benefits unto themselves following the H.I.V. epidemic and with the post-Darwinian loss of faith in God and rise of nihilistic and hypocritical political values that an existential resignation to being, and even a tiredness to existing developed an unconcern or uncaring about the very real prospect for nuclear war?

President Reagan's agenda- a personal one like that of Donald Trump, was peace with the Soviet Union. In some miraculous way that mission was accomplished, yet President Clinton bungled the peace and with irrational exuberance took advantage of the Russian state's weakness and expropriated all of the Ukraine from it. That doomed the world to the present conflict where Europe and N.A.T.O. are the Spanish fascists seeking to takeover all of Russia with the United States as the blaster with England being something like the national master (Master-Blaster Beyond Thunderdome).

Russia is not Vietnam, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Syria, Libya or some other country the U.S.A. has invaded or sponsored a war with. Russian's will fight to retake their Ukraine lands lost to the west during the transition from Soviet Communism. Making peace with Russia with a negotiated settlement excluding the present unelected Ukrainian administration was always the rational and true policy for the U.S.A. to take, and one eschewed soundly in reference for continuous escalation of war with Russia.

There is no good end through war economically or empirically. If Russia were very pressed by conventional weapons it could use tactical battlefield nukes to offset the disadvantage. It could provide suitcase nukes for terrorists to smuggle into the U.S.A. via porous borders transparent to combat terrorist egression. If a stalemate or armistice is reached the U.S.A. has a divided economic world with reduced trading partners, prolific public debt (33 trillion) and challenged by a raising Asian economic power that could easily surpass that of the U.S.A.. European partners n the crime of Ukraine war on Russia have forgotten the problems of the Second World War after decades of prosperity and ease. They support the ancient European tradition of war on Russia in order to expand Eastward although of course they require false political consciousness (ref Sartre) from the broadcast media to feel down with it.

I won't feel particularly satisfied if the Ukraine war expands to a nuclear level. It could further escalate and cause inflation, or for Alaska temperatures to drop to -80 f year around for a half a decade from nuclear winter if Americans survive the fallout. I would think that at some point Democrat party leadership should have more concern and a sense of danger than do somewhat tame squirrels. Misery from poverty caused by war and little or no medical while being injured can be a painful experience that one should avoid a priori rather than to feel contrition about later.