My generations biggest fear was that there would be a global thermonuclear war that destroyed civilization, and those few that survived would have short miserable lives picking through the ashes ala 'the road'. Being 50 and renting a house instead of owning it doesn't sound that bad to me.
It was a much more real threat in the 80's and early 90's, though. I highly doubt students are still forced to watch bullshit educational "duck and cover" videos on how hiding under their desks will somehow save them from a nuclear explosion.
That being said, kids have something else to replace that fear with nowadays: the constant potential threat of a possible school shooter.
There is a considerable area that is far enough away from a nuclear explosion to not be obliterated, but close enough that buildings may collapse, windows may be converted into deadly projectiles, and so on. Duck and cover would in fact save many many lives in that area.
> "It was a much more real threat in the 80's and early 90's, though. I highly doubt students are still forced to watch bullshit educational "duck and cover" videos on how hiding under their desks will somehow save them from a nuclear explosion."
I agree that it was more prominent in the public imagination, and you're right that "duck and cover" videos and similar were part of what kept it there, but I would dispute that the threat is any less 'real' now than it was in the 80's.
Looking around the world, I'd say there are currently three regions of instability that could lead to nuclear weapons used in anger (I'd add a fourth one if Trump is elected US President, and I'm not joking about that, the guy has already called for killing innocent people to further his own goals (killing the families of terrorists), and I could see Trump and Putin being a toxic combination in terms of diplomatic action).
The three regions I'm referring to are:
1. North Korea.
2. Middle East.
3. India and Pakistan.
North Korea are clearly threatening to develop nuclear weapons, and have a powerful ally in China, which allows them to get away with it so far. Even if the weapons are developed as a form of self defence, the question is what the leadership sees as valid threats, and considering their somewhat ruthless approach to their own people, I wouldn't put it past the North Korean government to do something reckless beyond their own borders.
The Middle East appears to be a huge mess, I'm sure I don't need to explain how chaotic the region is. Isreal are the only country in the region with nuclear weapons at the moment, but with the activity in the region it never seems far from disaster. Even if Isreal didn't push the button themselves, other more radical groups may go down that route. Russia's support for Assad and Turkey's membership of NATO are a bit of a concern when viewed in combination.
India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers, engaged with a minor conflict with each other over their borders. Things appear to be settling down recently but if either side gets a war-hungry government then work on developing a peaceful resolution could be undone.
I don't dispute that nuclear weapons could come into play again in the future, just that a truly global thermonuclear war is much less likely now than in the past. Sure North Korea might try to launch a nuclear missile or two (coincidentally they just threatened to do so today) and get wiped out in the process, and yeah, some terrorists would probably love to detonate a suitcase nuke somewhere, but that's not the same thing as a truly global event that threatens all of humanity as we know it.
During the Cold War there was a really good chance of that happening, and there were several instances where equipment malfunctioned (and showed impending missile launches when where there was none) and the only thing that stopped it was the right general making a smart call that it wasn't real, or several other close calls, from global destruction.
North Korea isn't likely to bring that about. The Middle East isn't too likely to bring that about. India and Pakistan aren't going to bring that in either.
Russia is still capable to do that, but I think they're not too serious about their desire to actually go into war and are more taking advantage of NATO's unwillingness to go into war to make a few small land grabs (that was a little scary, though).
The tension and complex web of polar opposite alliances across the whole world just isn't there like it was in WWI, WWII, and Cold War days. It could still develop in the next decade or two, sure, but I really don't think we're there right now.
For all the ills that Capitalism might have, I do think it's helped tie all the countries that participate in it to each other's fates, to a certain extent, and they don't want to see the other countries fail (or attack them directly) since it will now affect their own economy, probably for the worst.
Trump is a wild card, but I think assuming he won the nomination he'll calm down his rhetoric, since he needs to in order to win the moderate vote anyway. If he actually made it into office, then that's admittedly a wild card. I'd like to think that he didn't actually believe that shit he said and will be more concerned with internal politics than foreign, and/or will head the advice of people who have been there a lot longer. Hopefully.
The danger of thermonuclear war is just as real (yet remote) today as the danger (and remoteness) of a school shooting in the 80s. The only difference is the popular perception of that threat as fueled by the media.
