News/current affairs

Since the Palestine/Israel conflict began, I've stopped reading the news (I don't watch TV or listen to the radio, anyway).

This is to protect my mental health as my responses to the various conflicts in the world tend to either be anger or distress.

I've never done this before but for several decades of my life news wasn't so readily available.

The internet changed all that.

I don't know how long I will be able to isolate myself in this way, but I had become rather addicted to the BBC news website, constantly updating it to see the latest.

Does this resonate with anyone?

Parents
  • This resonates with me. I remember back when Covid first hit and the news was inundated with all of it. Everytime I looked anywhere I'd see some sort of scary headline would set me off onto an anxiety trip or panic attack. I'd had to detach and stop following all news outlets and so forth then to protect my mental well being. This became my new normal and I never really went back to looking at it which I'm grateful for now especially. 

  • id say covid was worse, as it was a issue that could effect us and our lives and is local especially with how badly the borders are managed to the point theres no way we can control or restrict the spread globally due to borders that are never respected and never done the job right there.

    so basically the covid news was all promises of death coming to your doorstep.

    russia could also have been bad news too but then we realise russia lies about everything and they dont have any nuclear capability. 

Reply
  • id say covid was worse, as it was a issue that could effect us and our lives and is local especially with how badly the borders are managed to the point theres no way we can control or restrict the spread globally due to borders that are never respected and never done the job right there.

    so basically the covid news was all promises of death coming to your doorstep.

    russia could also have been bad news too but then we realise russia lies about everything and they dont have any nuclear capability. 

Children
  • thats the same in all wars really... theres never a winner in war, both sides its just death and loss... then the loss even of the winner creates a lack of male population which destroys that nation in the future.... that is how the british empire fell, it won its wars, but it lost its manpower. it was unable to do anything without manpower so it all fell apart and everyone could rise up and challenge it... then ofcourse america who was sitting in the sidelines and had plenty of manpower due to doing nothing stepped up to fill the void and stablise that power vaccum.

    russias entire problems and poverty and lack of quality of life is because they lost so many people in ww2, but yet they are the official winners of ww2... but in the long run, they lost because they threw over 20 million mens lives away in battle... thats counted... uncounted it could be hundreds of millions lost on their side...

    china is becoming a world ruling power now and will likely rule the world.... you see, they never had much wars so manage to keep a good population rolling, high manpower high population, rule the world.

    get into wars all the time, win.... you lose the future because you lose manpower now.... those lives lost are multiplied over generations.... 100k lives lost in a war in the terms of future if those 100k didnt lose their lives in 100 years time that could be 10 million people... so 100k lost could very well cost 10 million people for the nation. a big loss of life even in the smallest losses. a great loss of power for a nations future.

    its also why nations WANT mass migration.... because its a act of stealing population from another... stealing another nations future power. thats the real reason why the west want mass migration. its all another layer of war that no one sees, taking the future from another nation to bolster our own, although that kind of war the winner of it is rejuvenated with more future population and empowered...but its still immoral and takes from other nations and makes them worse off. 

  • I suppose the truth is it’s meant to be a deterrent. If it actually kicks off then there is no winning, even if we manage to strike back at our opponent.

  • ah it must be only like 6 to 12 subs with ability to use them that im thinking of then lol

    and we only have like 1 sub out at all times as a measure incase the base gets attacked. so technically when things kick off we may only actually have 1 sub capable of action with the limited warheads it carries

  • UK has around 260 nuclear warheads and the total cost of Trident is estimated to be £200bn over 30 years, so about 6 or 7 billion a year at today’s prices.

  • aye russia worried me for a while as putin absolutely would use nukes if hed lose and he will lose.

    but all their reports of their nukes and their nuke count is carried over from the soviet nuke supply... theres no way they have the soviet nukes and if they do they dont work because germany dipped into their ww2 missile supply and due to the age they had all rotten, so the russians soviet era nukes would all be rotten and unusable..... in esscence they dont have the 9000 nukes they claim to have.... theyd only have whatever nukes they made in modern times.... if any at all, they might not have the parts to make them anymore.

    the uk only has around 6 to 12 nukes.... it costs us hundreds of billions a year to maintain just that amount, russia is poor so they would struggle maintaining 12 nukes.... the uk also has to regulary replace the nukes due to ageing and swap them for new ones... which russia doesnt do at all... in short, i doubt russia has any nukes what so ever. just like they seemingly dont have a airforce... and they dont have 2 million soldiers which is also a lie of theirs gave away by the fact they have to do a civilian draft after only fielding 50k men. so russia is built on a foundation of bluffs and lies, all easily seen through.

    then even if they did have a few nukes.... you have to question their ability to use them effectively.... they said they would set it off in the sea and create a big wave to splash us? .... this is laughable and ineffective and no wave would ever be created big enough to really pose any threat. it would be a waste of their limited nuke supply. we set nukes off in the sea all the time, america does near pacific islands and the pacific islands are very low in the sea level so even a small wave will sink them but they never get sunk by nuke testing near them.

  • Yeah, that is exactly what was impacting my mental health and setting off panic attacks it was so bad. I think even Facebook had a number count of the death toll at one point too. 

    Russia also scared me as well