I live and work within a nuclear blast radius[0] of both China and Russia's current weapon of choice, therefore I am doing nothing to prepare for a hypothetical WW3. To be honest, "prepping" sounds like a pretty unhealthy way to live, and I see no specific basis for believing WW3 is particularly likely in the short term. Seems like it is anxiety from watching too much news.

My biggest fears in my lifetime and water-wars and China's gender imbalance (i.e., too many men who won't find a +1 and will get angry). Historically energy was also a big motivator for war, but with renewables if countries get their act together, it could genuinely smooth that out quite a lot.

Do I think these will lead to "World Wars?" Actually, no, because nuclear war is bad for everyone. But we will see more Ukraine-like invasions into neighboring countries. If I was in China's backyard, I'd be particularly nervous.

[0] https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

How is prepping for disasters unhealthy?

A few years ago when stores were running out of TP, meds, etc, preppers were the ones laughing.

You don't need to go full blown bunker in the backyard to prep a bit just in case.

> To be honest, "prepping" sounds like a pretty unhealthy way to live, and I see no specific basis for believing WW3 is particularly likely in the short term. Seems like it is anxiety from watching too much news.

It's absolutely from keeping an eye on the news, and probably too much. That's pretty much where all non-local anxiety comes from isn't it?

I agree, full on prepping seems like it could be unhealthy. But it seems like there should be less drastic measures that are overall positive and prudent whether or not war comes (for example the archiving I mentioned).

Or maybe even the opposite, maybe we should take more risks (in life, love, business, etc) now because life is ephemeral anyway?

>It's absolutely from keeping an eye on the news, and probably too much. That's pretty much where all non-local anxiety comes from isn't it?

!!!!!!! https://youtu.be/M0D3A5dnAqg !!!!!!!

Prepping could be making sure you have enough food to last 3 days, have an first aid kite, a plan, backup information documents in a second location or meet up location for loved ones. All sensible things your local fire department will advice to do.

You don't have to build a bomb shelter. You are more likely to run into a weather event compared to war. Don't ignore a basic prep.

I agree with this.

I kinda wish I chose a different word than "preparing" because I think it's anchoring people on a certain stereotype, which I do think is interesting and relevant, but I think only covers a small part of how you might adjust your life if you think war is a legitimate risk.

For example, maybe you might join (or attempt to leave) the armed forces or some public office. Maybe you'd try to move countries or change jobs in some way. Maybe you'd start trying to improve your physical health. Maybe you would alter plans around having kids. Maybe you'd try to build some tools that would be useful for you and your family in a time of war. The full on prepper bunker is a relevant answer, but I'm interested in more than that.

I'm also interested in hearing from the people whose answer is get up, work, eat, sleep, repeat, just like every other day.

I bought a radiation dosimeter (GQ GMC-500Plus) as well as some iodine tablets. I also have several jugs of water, large bags of rice and beans, a few paper books and basic first aid supplies.

Last April I made a sign that says "WE ARE SLEEPWALKING INTO NUCLEAR WAR" and I spent some time holding it up on a busy intersection near my home in Chattanooga, TN. I decided to do this after seeing the way I was shadowbanned on social media for occasional posts in protest of clearly harmful media narratives. I don't think that I am likely to change the course of events at all, but it beats just sitting on your hands and sulking about it:

https://twitter.com/realTaraHarris/status/152157741487430451...

https://twitter.com/realTaraHarris/status/161793964289205862...

I am saddened that a larger anti-war movement has not materialized by this point. Something foul happened to American media after the second Iraq war.

Edit: go head and downvote me. I'm just honestly answering the OP's question. I'll protest the American empire, in real life on the street, for an additional hour for each downvote I get.

I don't share your view specifically but I'm angered that social media has taken away another viewpoint. Stop hiding people's truth and let everyone decide for themselves.

Currently, anti-war movement would be stupid in US. Anti-war movement can work if war is pointless in political best interests, like Vietnam War or Afghanistan.

If Russia is allowed to run wild in Eastern Europe and China on the Pacific, then the core of American social contract would be endangered. You cannot be advocating against wars without providing a solution to aggressive authoritarian countries that want to take over US hegemony. US needs to be ready defending it position even if there is risk of nuclear war. If anything, US was too soft in last two decades. Obama Russia reset was a mistake and Trump clumsy trade war with China was too weak and too late.

But the core premise of the "American social contract" seems to be that the US remains the global arbiter and police.

Does the US:

* Have the moral standing to do this anymore?

* Have the actual economic resources to do this forever?

* Have the actual understanding of other countries' needs and histories to do it in a constructive way?

You could make some modest case for the US hegemony in 1946. There was no other major power that was fully industrialized, not massively damaged by on-site war, and politically and economically stable. They could be the stable, mature voice in the room to help lead the newly peaceful world to progress and prosperity.

Is that necessary in 2023? We have multiple stable, strong economic powers. Indeed, there is value in moving towards a "disagreement of equals" when it comes to global challenges: there may be problems where we may need to look at a Chinese, Russian, or European model for the best solution.

As for "aggressive authoritarian countries"-- I've always wondered: if democracy is so self-evidently wonderful, why doesn't it automatically win?

From an optimistic perspective, I suspect it's a matter of democracy being a fragile system, requiring a lot of social and economic preconditions to survive, so maybe we need to be building those conditions first, even if it means "supporting authoritarian regimes" today, so when the time comes, democracy can take hold and survive. From a pessimistic one, I wonder if maybe authoritarianism is valid in and of itself-- it's efficient and capable of making the unpopular choices elected officials hide from. But the West sure loathes it because it undermines the individualist "I am the main character, my decisions and opinions matter" mentality.

Solution: a trilateral agreement between the US, China and Russia that the intelligence establishments of each major power be progressively destroyed, leaving a world without large-scale state-sponsored secrecy.

Official secrecy is the ultimate weapon in any authoritarian regime. No illegitimate government can survive without it.

To be sure, private actors can attempt to retain secrets, but they simply do not have the resources to destroy the world in the way that even a small nation (let alone a nuclear superpower) does.

If this sounds impractical, take the New START treaty as a model. Let's have fully open teams of international inspectors that monitor the number of spies employed at the CIA HQ in Langley, VA, at the Ministry of State Security in Beijing, and at FSB HQ in Moscow. These agencies, and all others like them, should be progressively dismantled in lockstep, on a timetable set by treaty. The files they all keep should be made open to the public and used to teach future generations that secrecy itself is a weapon that repeatedly brought humanity to the point of self-annihilation.

And yes, this same process needs to happen with the world's war departments as well. Call me a dreamer if you want, but at least I'm not on the side of more killing.

I hate to discourage you from your protests, but I tossed an upvote for what seems like an honest reply.

Putting aside the small, but non-zero possibility of WWIII, I think having some emergency supplies on hand is always a wise thing.

There's always floods and other local emergencies.

Or a drunk driver hits a local power line that makes a mess of a lot of your life until it gets fixed, which doesn't necessarily happen right away. Having some extra supplies on hand (say candles and cooking fuel and some meals you can make) might make your life a lot more pleasant while you wait for a few days for that to be fixed.

You don't need to dig out a doomsday bunker and max out your credit cards today to fill it with rice and beans and canned goods, but buying a reasonable amount of extra supplies for an emergency is always a good idea.

And you should be prepping with food and other goods you'll eventually eat anyway, making it a very low-cost activity. Just rotate through older cans to ensure freshness.

COVID and the Ukrainian invasion made me realise that when shit hits the fan, there's not much you can do. Borders close, banks stop working, and people hoard the weirdest things.

It made me rethink how fast I could withdraw money and leave the country if things went south. Food won't run short, but everything that allows people and money to move will.

> Food won't run short,

I hope not, but don't be so sure that this is an absolute fact of the modern world. Food being scarce is the norm in most of human history, including mass starvations within very recent, living memory.

> I get the feeling from the news that the ruling class is driving us to war.

Fear sells, means nothing.

> Other than that, I don't know. What would folks who had to go through WW2 have told themselves if they could have sent a message back in time?

"ah shid..."

Yes. Old troglodyte prepper here. I don't prep for WWIII specifically, just anything from natural disasters to economic collapse to civil war. It's more of a hobby for me at this point and has already paid off a few times. Covid was the most recent event. I always find it interesting to see what comes next. A train carrying some surprise payload? A balloon with an EMP? Avian flu gain of function? A new fake activist group? A giant stay-puft marshmallow man? I can't mitigate all of them but I am stubborn enough to try.

I've been stockpiling hot cocoa for the marshmallow threat we live under.

I listen to this guy https://marfooglenews.com/ on youtube and twitter and read his "show notes" each time he posts them. Sometimes they are very interesting like:

https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/local/video-nyc-launche...

but sometimes they seem like he's grasping for content.

Off-topic: I wonder what kind of information a website must collect so they decide to deny access from EU.

Like it happens with this audacy.com website

I'm not prepping at all. If a real "world war" breaks out with china I assume it will use bioweapons and other new shit and we'll all be done for fast (both sides).

WW3 with China? I think the most likely worst case is the USA blockading China with its control of the oceans if they invade Taiwan. I don't see a land invasion in either direction. USA is not going to invade china and vice versa. I don't see it escalating to nuclear.

We should be OK on food, if not having opposite problem with a surplus of grain with no one to sell it to. It may be good to stock up on consumer goods like shoes, a few cheap android phones, etc.

You dont think blockading China is an act of war?

I'm saying a blockade would be the war.

This is all just theoretical. Who knows what will happen after a Taiwan invasion. But I don't see a "blockade war" requiring too much preparation for the average US citizen.

After the last blockade killed ~40m people under Mao, I think any move to blockade will be seen as another mass murder attempt and an initiation of WW3.

Well, yes the question is about a theoretical WW3 and what people should stock up on to prepare. The morality of WW3 is a separate question in its own right.

But I don't see a blockade as the "initiation" of WW3. I see it as the meat and potatoes of the war. The middle and end. Enforced at choke points and open waters far from the mainland. With neither side even considering a land invasion of the other. An ocean war with small fights, flying drones, under water drones, etc.

>I see it as the meat and potatoes of the war. The middle and end.

Are you saying an attempted or successful blockade would end a war? I disagree.

I think any country that has seriously considered a war with the US as a likely eventuality knows targeting the US mainland is a top priority as far as countermeasures go.

American residents not being in the vicinity of the true cost of war is a tremendous privilege that wont be allowed to continue indefinitely, I expect this is why long range hypersonic missile development is only ramping up.

> Are you saying an attempted or successful blockade would end a war?

Yes. I do believe a blockade and minor ocean fighting would be as far as it escalates.

I see nuclear war as China's only option to retaliate.

I'm not, but if I wanted to prepare for any kind of a disaster, I'd learn the basics of medical profession, especially things they do in an emergency room, and most common types of surgery. I'd at least read about it.

Just relax and and enjoy the spectacle.

You/we can't do anything to change minds that think they're 'exceptional', and there are just too many of those to get rid of all of them. We'll merely all go down together.

Gaia needs to get rid of the last unsuccessful experiment called humanity. Here's hoping her next experiment turns out better than this one.

realistically, if you are not part of the elite, you cant do much other than moving to somewhere remote or neutral like NZ or Switzerland

My plan is to leave. Pack the bike in the van and drive off.

I don't actually plan beyond that. If previous events taught us one thing, it's that people get stuck within borders with their money frozen, and stockpiling food won't fix that.

I’m Taiwanese American, so yes.

I am gathering as much knowledge and skills as I can that I feel might be useful. The folks who had to go through WW2 probably would have appreciated a message along the lines of: “don’t trust your government’s paper money.”

It must be so nice to be American - "preparing to WW3" means downloading stuff off the Internet for them and not having cash and passports ready to leave your home immediately when the enemy comes.

Well, that's what the question is asking. Maybe having cash and passports ready is the answer. Though if the enemy comes to America, I'm not sure how to go about leaving or where to go. Probably can't just book a flight.

The internet has the answers to just about any how-to question that's been asked. What foods can you forage in my region, how to trap animals, how to build a shelter, what's the weather in this area historically, how can I make this broken machine work, etc. "Downloading stuff off the internet" I think turns out to be pretty useful.

> What foods can you forage in my region, how to trap animals, how to build a shelter, what's the weather in this area historically, how can I make this broken machine work, etc

I don't think these will be particularly useful, unless you end up in very particular circumstances. In general, if you end up in teritory where civilization has completely broken down, it's better to leave than to play Robinson Crusoe.

Those are just a few examples. I can't imagine a scenario where you're still alive and having your questions answered isn't incredibly useful.

> it's better to leave than to play Robinson Crusoe.

Some of the questions you might be looking to answer could be around "how do I get out of here".

Sure, have a few days of supplies for any given emergency, but you are fooling yourself if you think you are going to develop any tenable plan to ride out the apocalypse. Adapt, improvise, pray. That's it.

>trying to archive as much as I can

Yes, I've built a vast digital archive of movies and shows.

Absolutely and only because of my anticipation of a post-Internet apocalypse. *cough*

Useful resource https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/

Beans, bullets, and bandaids.

Naw, I'm in a big city. I'm toast.

I guess you haven't gone down the whole prepper's Rabbit hole? Well it's "year of the Rabbit" so maybe now is a good time, haha. Neither have I, tho. But I'm dimly aware of it as something out of the corner of my eye that I maybe/probably should get into looking at (at least) at some point in the future.

However, even tho I live in one of the most "geopolitically contested" corners of the planet (you know that place that the Chinese Nationalists retreated to after they lost the Chinese civil war around 70 years ago? That place that was occupied by the Qing dynasty, also partially a Dutch colony sometime in the past, also owned by the Japanese Empire at some point), I don't think I need to worry about that situation^0. Sometimes, the most obvious things are the most stable. It's the Black Swans -- the unknown unknowns -- that we need to worry about. Or at least, not worry about (because what's the point? That never got anyone anywhere...) but maybe we aware of...and try to prep for? Somehow anyway.

I definitely plan to do my "earth pole reversal epic 12,500-year cycle flood" safety zone map, and purchase some land so I can build my survival bunker deep into the side of a mountain. I heard the Rockies is good. Plus, snowboarding. So there's that.

But honestly, I think these things are like real estate: location, location, location. So probably...it really matters where you base yourself. And if you can diversify, or base yourself wisely...you'll be one of the small number of survivors to inherit the Earth. Haha. Kidding...almost.

0^ about that...Everyone seems to think Xi Jinping needs to do that for his "legacy" or "personal vision" or something (equating him with Putin in his zeal for territorial spiritual integrity or something), but I think...Xi Jinping is an epic practical/pragmatic/humorous/patient strategist...why give up a good thing? If it ain't broke...don't fix it: the current status quo seems to be working (because of, not in spite of, the current contested nature ~~ in a similar way that NI/ROI profit from the division) on multiple levels to play into the interests of multiple super powers (US/China) and multiple satellite powers (Shanghai/Taipei/Western countries that deal with Taiwan on some level). Xi Jinping went from dust-herder son-of-Party-exile, through forget-him-if-you-met-him regional non-controversial/non-threatening Party kahuna, to leader of resurgent China. He's the master of conceal your strength, move in darkness, strike like thunder. If he was really going to be invading Taiwan at any point militarily, you think he'd be telegraphing that shit like the mainstream narrative discourse has it about the situation? No way, I say. But that's just me. What do I know? :)

WW3 is not going to happen. Proxy wars like Ukraine, yes. But not all out WW3 for the following reasons:

0. If some European countries were not tied to NATO, they would not have supplied arms to Ukraine. Look how much time it took for Germany to agree to send tanks to Ukraine. France was also not keen on the war and Macron was involved in early negotiations.

1. The EU is already thinking of having its own army so that it is not reliant on the USA. This is being spearhead by France.

2. The so called powerful countries were not able to defeat a rag-tag group of ill armed terrorists after 20 years and spending trillions of dollars on bribes and modern weapons. Most of them have learnt that in this day and age wars are not viable. It just increases immigration.

3. Look at some of the countries that are not siding with the countries against Russia: India, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Out of these, Israel and Saudi Arabia are US allies; India is a QUAD member, and South Africa is a major African economy and part of BRICS. Watch a recent podcast interview of ex-Israel prime minister Naftali Bennette on who really was responsible for escalating the Ukraine war. He, like French President Macron, was involved in early attempts to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

4. India, which this year will be hosting G20 summit, has started talking about the "Global South", the countries that are already struggling financially and due to climate change. This group will be given a voice for the first time in this "exclusive club of the 'rich'". Most of the world have different priorities and want to move away from the cold-war like situation, let alone a world war. They have their citizens to look after and fight poverty and climate disasters.

5. A full-scale war between India and China is unlikely because both have an agreement that they will not use lethal weapons on the border. The last time they fought war, that was in 2020, and both sides used sticks and stones. I am not kidding, two nuclear powers fought a war with sticks and stones! The only lethal weapon used was batons wrapped with barbed wires to kill Indian soldiers.

6. India is not going to attack Pakistan because Pakistan has openly declared that it will use tactical nuclear weapons against India if there is an attack.

7. China will not attack Taiwan because it already did a trial run in Hong Kong of its strategy and to test to what level the rest of the world will intervene. China will not take control of Taiwan by force. It will take indirect control of its parliament, and then overtime it will take complete control. It knows the risk of direct war.

The template for wars in this age is what is happening in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Ukraine. It will be proxy wars, and the losers will be the "pawn countries". These pawn countries ultimately get divided on sectarian, ideological or religious lines.

The news channels earn their bread and butter by scare mongering. So don't always believe in what they say. The most who benefit from wars is defense industries, finance industry (due to money laundering), news media and politicians, in that order. Everyone else loses.

How much of the region history do you know? Russia has been invading countries for centuries. You are fooling yourself by reducing the complicated history and relations between Russia and Ukraine to some kind of semi-conspiracy theory about proxy wars and what's not.

Well why single out Russia then? Since the end of WW2, which countries have invaded other countries the most? And what was the outcome of those invasions?

Get answers to these questions and you will know what I mean. All wars that have happened since WW2 are proxy wars. The west never learn the lesson after WW1 that humiliating a defeated country gives rise to characters like Hitler. After the fall of the USSR, if the west had put in an effort to mainstream Russia rather than make a scene out of it(remember that famous Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin press conference outside White House?) Even after that, Russia tried to guage the seriousness of the west (most notably NATO, because that is where the problem lies) to accommodate Russia. The Russians (Gorbachev himself had said this many times in interviews) that there was a promise from NATO to not expand eastwards because NATO was after all formed as a military alliance against Russia. Realising that is not going to happen, Russia used another track, of applying to NATO. The argument the Russians made was that if NATO is not an anti-Russian alliance then it should be allowed to join NATO too. This was the bonhomie period between Russia and the west(remember Putin being welcomed both at Downing Street by the UK prime minister and by the US President at his ranch?) In fact Russia was also very instrumental in providing logistical and intelligence support to NATO in the very early days of the "war on terror". Russia also expedited boundary resolution with some of its neighbours as that was one of the conditions put by NATO for Russia to be included in NATO. Having realised that NATO was not going to induct Russia, the Russians declared the now famous redline to NATO that it will not tolerate NATO missiles at its borders (the same way US did not tolerate USSR missiles in Cuba). Ukraine became a red flag for Russia because not only it would have bought NATO missiles to its doorsteps but it would have choked them in the black sea.

Watch Adam Curtis documentary on this subject and the background to this geopolitical chess game.

Having said all this, I am a believer in what Mahatma Gandhi said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". But I am also a realist. I know that the world is not rational. As the US reacted to the Cuban missile crisis, Russia is reacting to the NATO expansion. And no one really cares about the "pawn states". That is why I will urge you to watch Naftali Bennett's podcast interview.

What surprises me is that had NATO expedited Russian inclusion into NATO, it would have to concentrate only on "containing" China. Now, not only has that pushed Russia into China's orbit, it has opened a two front "war" in Europe and Asia!

> The Russians (Gorbachev himself had said this many times in interviews) that there was a promise from NATO to not expand eastwards because NATO was after all formed as a military alliance against Russia.

This oft repeated lie by supporters of Russia is getting tired. Gorbachev himself said that there was no promise given to him by NATO except in east Germany, which was kept.

> Gorbachev himself said that there was no promise given to him by NATO except in east Germany, which was kept.

How was East Germany going to promise about NATO's actions? East Germany was not in NATO as it was a Russian ally!

> How was East Germany going to promise about NATO's actions? East Germany was not in NATO as it was a Russian ally!

When Germany reunified was when the promise / guarantee was made.

It's a matter of perspective. No-one knew they were in a 'world' war at the time. 50 years from now historians will probably look back at this as 'world war 3' and we're just living through it oblivious.

Pretty sure after the US finally entered the war it was pretty clear, by looking at a map, that it was a world War.