I really think it would have been a pleasure to serve with you Ed. You really read and understand what I'm saying and the implications.

This reads like an opening abstract on a briefing paper. I loved it. It's clear, to the point, and cuts right to the critical question going forward.

Where in the coming years (or decades) is the breaking point for political, financial, and community cohesion that relies on endless growth capitalism and the fragile complexity of heavily interconnected technology and transport systems?

Personally I don't think the likelihood of a nuclear exchange large enough to trigger a "nuclear winter" is very high. I am assigning it a 5-10% probability at this time.

I am assigning a 75% probability to nuclear weapons being used in small numbers over the next 10 years. I would be surprised if it was more than five cities, I would also be surprised if it was less than 2.

I expect battlefield nukes will be used in limited numbers. If support for Ukraine evaporates I think the probability Putin will use them approaches certainty.

He wants to get rid of the Ukrainians. If he could use neutron bombs on them I am certain that he would. Using battlefield nukes would do two things; it would destroy the Ukrainian army and it would give Putin MASSIVE credibility.

You don't fuck with the guy who whips out his gun and shoots people who piss him off in the head. It's crimeboss/warlord level of governance but it can be effective.

I am troubled by the talk in the alt-right space of using nukes or radioactive dust to "seal the border" on the south by creating an impassable dead zone.