I think the experience you've described mostly works out because the infrastructure has developed (or not developed) in conjunction with unreliable power. It would be a pretty different story in a dense US city: there are no wells to draw from, no simplified infrastructure designed to operate with minimum power or water, etc.
In other words: mature infrastructure is both our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Countries that haven't as fully established their dependence on large-scale public infrastructure won't suffer as badly under a grid collapse.
From Iraq, we went from zero power cuts in decades to no power at all within two weeks in the gulf war in 90, as NATO countries attacked all our civilian power stations. Life became horrible but we adapted. In some cases there were fights between people no different than the fights you saw in western countries over toilet rolls during covid, but I wouldn’t say it was a total society collapse. People will always find a way to adapt.
Iraq's pre-war HDI was 0.560[1]. The US's in the same year was 0.865[2].
People will indeed always find a way to adapt! But I think these comparisons are fundamentally suspect: there really hasn't been think kind of mass-scale infrastructure collapse in a country nearly remotely developed as the US (or Canada, or the EU). The closest thing would probably be the war in Ukraine, and even there the infrastructure failures are relatively localized.
Similar story here - when NATO bombed Serbia (we were part of Yugoslavia in 1999) we had similar experience. We had 4 hour blackouts per day, not more luckily, as everyone had a lot of frozen food that could go bad if blackouts were longer.
Similarly I do not like authoritarians and therefore feel very bad for North Korean citizens. However I don’t understand why they are not allowed (or Iran, or any country) to build their own nuclear weapons.
Many countries have nukes - what is their right to have them? Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction?
I wish nukes would go away, but morally speaking if one country can have them then all countries can have them. It’s power politics after that.
> Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction?
not really. If you didn't already have nukes, but your regime is much against the west, i'd argue that it is the right thing for the west to deny it from them. I am attaching no moral argument to this - simply a practical, utilitarian argument.
The reason russia has free reign to invade ukraine is _because_ they have nukes. Iraq invaded Kuwait just the same, but was pressed back in a war - imagine if they did have nukes; it would mean that Iraq could've acted with impunity, and they'd control all of the oil resources that was Kuwaits'.
I agree from a western perspective. In a power struggle of west vs. various eastern alliances, it is in the west’s interest to prevent the spread of nukes.
From a plain and simple moral perspective, IMO every country has the right to build them. Preventing that is about what team you are on rather than morals.
It is a mistake to think in moral categories regarding to international politics.
Morale is something a group-in-power uses to control (or influence) the public. Like fear, greed, or compassion. Morale is not a basis for political decisions or political analysis.
Every country's ruler wants nuclear weapons. And every ruler wants the other rulers not to have the bomb at the same time.
To force the others not to develop the bomb, you must put pressure on them. A good way to put pressure is... to have the bomb.
> why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it?
As the parent poster explicitly states, there is no "moral argument" made there, it's a very utilitarian realpolitik argument that allowing you nukes is risky enough that for any western politician respecting their countries' interests the right choice is to enforce submission with all kinds of means (economic, military, espionage).
In my opinion, the situation where only a few powerful countries with quite stable institutions have nukes is better for humanity than the situation where every country has their own nukes.
Just consider the number of coups
or wars going on every decade: if everyone the incumbent leader knows that they can just press the red button and wipe out their opponents, of course it would en up happening one day, and could trigger a chain reaction.
This risk of "president goes mad" (don't look at the button Vladimir) is minimal when as few countries as possible have nukes.
Of course, this goes against the social justice between countries - but wait, does that concept even exist?
uh,,,, trump doesn't fall into the "president goes mad"? wasn't he the single guy who walked away from iran deal when even iran was willing to satisfy their end and EU urged US to reconsider but trump refused? could that not have solved "A LOT OF OUR PROBLEMS" and problems of ordinary citizens living in iran? but no. trump had to fuck this one up and looks like he wants a second run.
For most normal countries that aren't engaged in a power struggle against the world order it is probably safest for them if no one else can have them.
The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction, so more actors are likely going to be more dangerous than the danger from the current holders.
>>> For most normal countries
That's quite a racist thing to say. There is no such thing as normal and abnormal countries!
>>> aren't engaged in a power struggle against the world order
The US has been engaged in several coups around the world, but you will of course conveniently ignore this and pretend these countries are struggling to defeat the US.
>>> The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction
Counter point. India and Pakistan have not engaged in war since them both becoming nuclear powers. The US and Russia unlikely to go to war because of the ir nuclear powers! If every country had them it's likely to make the world safer.
I would posit that the climate and the season matter enough to be a solid moral distinction in this case. Civilian lives depend on gas and electricity in all scenarios, but they depend on them ~much more in a Ukrainian winter.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq is very controversial, even in the West (thank god for free speech and freedom of press) and I'd imagine many people on Ukraine's side also didn't agree with the second Iraq war. Might be different in the US, but it's certainly the feeling I get in Europe, even though many also simply have no opinion on Iraq.
uh... the same freedom of speech that is currently wanting to skin assange alive for making public war crimes commited by americans and yet instead of taking action against the actual aggressors, the messenger is being charged. cool....
btw, what i meant to say was, "iraq invasion" as you put might be "controversial" but there was no blowback of them as is being done to russia. the EU just either let US do its thing or even joined their side so yeah, controversial is short selling it.
Iraq, afghanistan, libya.... on and on. the US leaves destruction in its wake and its "just controversial" but no sanctions or arming the opposite side.
Oh, also, yemen has been decimated by saudis for years now but because they happen to be US allies, everyone just turns a blind eye. but iran needs "revolution" and "ukraine needs to be saved from russia"..
i am saying the two narratives do not depend on the ground realities, if people die or live. It just depends on the narrative that the US wants to push. That may be fine for the US or EU but everyone else just remembers.
In other words: mature infrastructure is both our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Countries that haven't as fully established their dependence on large-scale public infrastructure won't suffer as badly under a grid collapse.