Why we are not at risk of a world war - moving in the other direction - more peace and stability in the larger picture and Ukraine and events in the Middle East are local conflicts

We have done lots to prevent a third world war, that's why the UN was set up and then the big security coalitions like NATO which is defensive not retaliatory. And almost the entire southern hemisphere is a nuclear weapons free zone and everyone agrees that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought - with many precautions now to prevent accidental war.

Never was any risk from the localised conflict in Ukraine very slow moving hardly any changes since 2022.. Wars in the Middle East stay there. Hezbollah is gone, Syria's Assad regime is gone, Russia has left the Middle East and lost its only port outside the former Soviet Union, Iran is very much diminished in capability. Hamas wants peaceful decommissioning. The Houthis are much diminished.

South Korea is under a new liberal president - the liberals there are more focused on reducing tension with NK.

India and Pakistan give the clearest example of two nuclear weapon states that have border conflicts but always de-escalate and show that far from small conflicts escalating the opposite, they de-escalate.

India and China request every year for an immediate conference to eliminate all nukes.

Iran and all countries in the Middle East except Israel request a nuclear weapons free Middle East every year. Also joined by almost all countries in the world with three abstentions from US, Argentina and Cameroon

Only Israel votes against the resolution to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East, and three minor abstentions

Iran would like to establish a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone on this map.

This is voted for regularly in the UN General Assembly.

ONLY ISRAEL VOTES AGAINST.

Three abstain: Argentina, Cameroon and the USA.

Several others don’t vote, small island states.

Eeryone else votes in favour including all the Middle East states except Israel

Coloured with: https://www.geograf.in/en/map-color.php

This is the record of votes for 2024:

https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com24/votes-ga/404.pdf

121 countries joined India to call for a convention to prohibit all nukes in 2024 - majority vote for this every year - 49 against - 12 abstain

India has nukes but wants to very rapidly eliminate all nukes. Every year it brings a resolution to the UN to quickly eliminate all nukes globally as soon as is pracically possible and a majority of countries vote for it every time.

https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com24/votes-ga/404.pdf

This shows most of those countries on a map (there are a few small ones the interface didn’t include):

Countries that voted in 2024 to hold a convention on the prohibition of nukes

It claims it’s countries I visited, but I haven’t visted these countries, I just did it in order to make a map with those countries coloured blue. https://map1.maploco.com/visited-countries/mine.php?c1=p152qsqrjv-kvwt9h8o45-eomktlq5gq-k1apl6nv7r-2skpgzm8ri

The complete list is a bit longer. See: https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com24/votes-ga/404.pdf

Nuclear free zones (in blue) - almost the entire global south

The ones shown as blue are in nuclear weapon free zones. Nobody can even bring a nuke into those zones. The ones shown in yellow are Non Proliferation Treaty states. They pledge not to make nukes themselves and have regular atomic inspectors to make sure they don’t produce them. But some of them are in nuclear umbrellas of other states, especially the yellow ones in NATO such as Canada, Norway, Spain etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-weapon-free_zone

Mongolia is the only single country nuclear weapon free zone. The other big blue area in the northern hemisphere is the central Asian nuclear weapon free zone.

The Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (CANWFZ) treaty is a legally binding commitment by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan not to manufacture, acquire, test, or possess nuclear weapons. The treaty was signed on 8 September 2006 at Semipalatinsk Test Site, Kazakhstan, and is also known as Treaty of Semipalatinsk, Treaty of Semei, or Treaty of Semey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian_Nuclear_Weapon_Free_Zone

It’s easy to remember, all the “stan”s except Pakistan and Afghanistan are in it. Stan is a Persian term meaning place.

Treaty on prohibition of nukes

Then there’s the treaty on the prohibition of nukes. Many but not all countries in nuclear free zones are in this treaty.

It also adds a few other countries not in those zones such as Ireland.

Some other countries in Europe such as Ireland also prohibit nukes but aren’t in a nuclear weapon free zone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons

Hans Blix is a former nuclear weapons inspector, former head of the IAEA and chair of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission.

He says that despite blips like Gaza Strip and the Ukraine war that

• the world is moving in the direction of less conflict.

• He foresees an end to all wars

As a species we are surely only fully civilized once war ends, replaced by non lethal competition such as the Olympics. We will find promising signs that this may even happen this century.

This century may end with us eventually:

• scrapping not just most nukes but nearly all missiles.

I cover that here:

Cuba is one of the 50 founding members of the treaty to prohibit all nukes.

That's the page about Cuba from ICAN the International Committee to Abolish Nukes.

It was quite a big thing given its history when Cuba ratified the prohibition of nukes treaty

https://www.icanw.org/cuba

So if you get anyone online claiming Russia is going to place nukes in Cuba you know that it's garbage.

It makes no sense that Russia would attack NATO given that it

• couldn't spare the soldiers and fighter jets to stop a rebellion by rebels mainly in open top trucks in Syria

• lost its only port on the Med and outside of the former Soviet Union, Tartus in Syria in order to advance a few more kilometers in Donbas to try to take Pokrovsk.

• six months later, Russia has half encircled Pokrovsk but not yet reached its suburbs, or might have just reached them.

That is a country with

• 10 times as many military aircraft as Ukraine

• supersonic ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with a range of over 2000 km

Yet it can't take a small area 64 square miles with six months having this as its top priority.

Russia did liberate Sudzha, 5,000 in peace time after Ukraine took it over last August, the first country to take over part of Russia since WW2. But it took Russia from August 2024 all the way through to March 2024 to liberate a Russian city of 5,000 people in peace time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kursk_campaign#March_2025:_Russian_offensive,_recapture_of_Sudzha

The peace time population is a good indication of how hard it is to take over a city since it gives an idea of the number of streets for street to street fighting.. That is, unless it is liberated by some clever strategy as when Ukraine liberated Kherson city in the fall of 2022 with almost no fighting, by blocking Russian access across the Dnipro river using HiMARS strikes.

Russia can't take Pokrovsk, 60,000 in peace time.

There is no sign yet that Russia will be able to take Pokrovsk. It's supposedly planning a summer offensive, if it does that would be its main objective but it is not likely to take it and it is just filling in a small gap in its front line. It would still leave Izyum and

It's not going to attack NATO.

B

Also:

TEXT ON GRAPHIC:

Blue Text

Russia has ten times as many military aircraft as Ukraine and ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of over 2000 km and has been fighting for 6 months to try to capture tiny Pokrovsk with no success yet

Is this an army that can attack NATO? NO!

NATO is vastly superior to Ukraine

If Ukraine was a NATO country it could take over the Russian airspace over occupied Ukraine and the borders as easily as Israel took over the Iranian airspace - in one day.

Pokrovsk population 30,000 in peace time.

Pokrosk: Russia's big objective for 2024-5 - it gave up its Middle East presence, support of Assad regime and Tartus port in Syria for this

Scale: ten miles by ten miles square

Purple Text

No chance of Russia capturing Lyman, Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, or Druzhivka

Kostintynivka, Pokrovsk and Mymohad still hold

Names of Cities Circled with Rounded Rectangles

Lyman

Sloviansk

Kramatorsk

Druzhivka

Kostintynivka

Pokrovsk

Mymohad

Based on the ISW map for today.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375

Putin gave up Syria and the Tartus naval base in order to pour more soldiers and equipment into the assault on Pokrovsk which has been its main target since then - apart from liberating Sudzha in Kursk oblast - a small city of 5,000 in peace time. Pokrovsk had a population of 60,000 in peace time.

That is the entire Russian army. It still has ten times as many aircraft as Ukraine in all categories.

It's got long range missiles that can hit Ukraine from over 2000 km away.

Ukraine doesn't have missiles like that, because its allies think they will make it too powerful against Russia.

Yet - Russia in a half year of fighting has managed to half encircle Pokrovsk but as you see they haven't yet been able to reach its suburbs.

It had a population of 60,000 in peace time.

This is the same army that wasn't able to protect Assad's regime from rebels mostly in open top trucks - because they prioritized sending all their soldiers to fight in Ukraine with special focus on Pokrovsk.

There is no way that any NATO country would be stuck for a year trying to take a city the size of Pokrovsk.

If Ukraine had the capabilities of NATO it could take over air control over occupied Ukraine and bordering areas of Russia as easily as |Israel took over Syria.

So - is the Russian army an army that is going to march across Europe taking cities one after another?

Obviously not.

Can Russia engage with NATO and Ukraine simultaneously in a war where NATO joins in with Ukraine?

clearly not.

This should help next time you see someone online claiming Russia is about to take over all of Ukraine or take over Kharkiv (population 1.4 million) or Kyiv (population 3 million). Or claiming it's going to attack NATO.

Why Putin bluffs: if Ukraine had the Tomahawks it could put an end to the Garen / Shahed drone attacks - unlikely to happen but shows how weak Russia is

The war in Ukraine is localized to Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Russia has no chance of taking any of the big cities and its drone attacks and attacks on the civilian infrastructure in cities are just to try to intimidate its population and force it to use its air defences to defend its cities instead of its soldiers, not of any military value.

Even today - Russia has two drone factories which together make thousands of drones a month which they fire at Ukraine. They are not buried deep underground and would be very vulnerable to the tomahawk cruise missiles which NATO has had since the early 1980s. They have different warheads and one of them is the bunkerbusting JMEWS if they needed it.

The JMEWS is mentioned here in the Wikipedia article, expect they were used in Iran:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_missile#Upgrades

There are only two of the drone factories.

The main Shahed drone factories are in Yelabuga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelabuga_drone_factory

and Izhevsk https://odessa-journal.com/russians-have-scaled-up-the-production-of-shahed-clones-with-a-new-factory-in-izhevsk

They are well within the more extended Tomahawk range of Ukraine.

This is from Google Maps and shows how far they are from the front line - it shows the distance you travel on foot as the closest that google maps gives to a straight line that I can share, you can measure distances on the map but not share those measurements.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Izhevsk/Yelabuga/Luhansk,+Luhansk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@53.8056694,32.278347,2384192m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m20!4m19!1m5!1m1!1s0x43e13920148e2bb1:0xa7e1eb248097e152!2m2!1d53.2324284!2d56.8618601!1m5!1m1!1s0x415f8bf23695c267:0x6d25e4021613ccfd!2m2!1d52.0111842!2d55.761218!1m5!1m1!1s0x411fc564844c6285:0xf8e02e7e879e7164!2m2!1d39.3152292!2d48.5687239!3e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDcwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I expect a similar strike to the ones used against Iran with the Tomahawks would leave the factories set back in a major way. Of course the Russians would rebuild. Further away or build deep underground. But it would stop almost all of it for some time.

The main point here is that Putin is able to protect his drone factories and other targets like that just using words, with his nuclear bluffs. That is why he bluffs. Not because he would ever use nukes. Just to protect his soldiers and factories.

Why Putin bluffs: if Ukraine had NATO F-35 fighter jets the war would soon be over in its favour - not going to happen but shows how weak Russia is

The Russian airforce is surprisingly weak. As I said they have never been able to take advantage of their 10 to 1 numerical superiority over Ukraine.

NATO has vastly superior equipment and vastly superior training. Israel took over the Iranian airspace in one day - destroying almost all the Iranian air defences on that first day because its F-16s are vastly superior to the older fighter jets Iran has.

If Ukraine had the NATO F-35 fighter jets - it wouldn't need NATO pilots, it could recruit foreign volunteers as it does already for its army. There are many countries that now fly F-35s and would have retired F-35 fighter pilots that might well be sympathetic and interested to fly for Ukraine. With the F-35s, as stealthy as a supersonic baked potato in radar cross-section - Ukraine could take over the airspace of occupied Ukraine and border areas of Russia. Just as Israel did for Iran, Ukraine could then destroy the Russian air defences from above and be ready to destroy any missile launcher in that area as soon as it launches anything.

If Ukraine had the F-35 the war wouldn't last much longer.

This is not going to happen. But it shows that Russia is not at all capable of fighting NATO. The bluffs are to handicap Ukraine not because there is any even remote possibility of Russia attacking NATO.

Russia is extraordinarily weak - the ONLY WORLD POWER WITHOUT A SINGLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER

Incidentally Russia is likely soon going to sell or scrap it’s only aircraft carrier.

It’s only ever seen service once. It was built in the Nikolayev shipyard in Soviet Ukraine. This is now within Ukraine and is not part of occupied Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykolayiv_Shipyard

It was known for the thick black smoke. This is because it burnt a heavy tarry oil called Mazut. That’s the source of a lot of its problems. Modern aircraft carriers are powered either by nuclear reactors or gas turbines.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/black-smoke-russias-admiral-kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier-has-problem-207452

So Russia is officially a world power without an aircraft carrier. It has no way to transport its aircraft to other countries or conflicts in the world any more.

It had only one ever deployment, to the Mediterranean sea off Syria in 2016-7 and in that deployment it lost two aircraft. A Mig-29 ran out of fuel while waiting to land and an Su-33 plunged off the deck into the sea when a cable snapped that was supposed to stop it.

QUOTE STARTS

Built at the Nikolayev shipyard in Soviet Ukraine, Russia lost access to key parts of her support infrastructure after the collapse of the USSR. This made for chronic support and maintenance issues from the beginning.

When she was running, her underpowered steam turbines frequently belched black smoke, which were reportedly visible from orbit.

The last time the Admiral Kuznetsov was deployed was in 2016-17 off Syria. In fact, it was the carriers first and only deployment, but it didn’t go well. Two aircraft were lost in just three weeks;.

The first, a MiG-29, crashed into the sea after running out of fuel while waiting to land. The second, an Su-33, plunged off the deck into the sea after an arresting cable snapped on landing.

Sent for maintenance in 2018, the PD-50 floating dry dock (Russia’s largest and the only one capable of holding Kuznetsov) sank beneath her during maintenance. A 70-tonne crane crashed onto the flight deck, causing major structural damage.

A year later, in 2019, a fire broke out during welding work, kiling two people and causing over $1 billion in damage. In 2022, another fire broke out, this time in an engine room. Less devastating than the first, it added to the ship’s list of misfortunes and delayed its return to service. It has never returned to service since.

https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/russia-scrap-admiral-kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier/

The Soviet Union had four Kiev class aircraft carriers, all made in Ukraine and gone now.

• Admiral Gorshkov - sold to India which upgraded it and made it into its INS Vikramaditya carrier.

• Kiev, sold to China where it is part of a theme park and developed into a luxury hotel

• Minsk - sold to South Korea for scrap which then sold it to China which made it the main feature of the Minsk World theme park

• Novorossiysk - sold to South Korea for scrap.

Russia never developed a nuclear powered aircraft carrier - it tried but then the Soviet Union broke apart and that ended those plans.

As Brent Eastwood put it:

Russia has been more of a land power than a sea power throughout its modern history, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union ended ambitions to build more carriers to accompany the lone carrier Russia fields now, that cursed bucket of bolts, the Admiral Kuznetsov.

. Russia's Aircraft Carrier Dreams Turned Into a Never Ending Nightmare

Without any aircraft carriers and without any presence in the Middle East any more, Russia’s army is confined to fighting around the borders of Russia. It depends mainly on railway lines for its logistics - supplies - and supplemented by trucks.

It does have its nuclear subs and its warships. But because they don’t have the ability to travel with fighter jets, then they are very limited in what they can do far from Russia. And Russia has no foreign ports outside the former Soviet Union.

The US has 11 aircraft carriers with 4 in service at any time

The USA typically has 4 aircraft carriers in service at any time and has 7 more in repairs or getting ready to deploy - UK has 2 and France has 1 - India has 2 and China has 3 - Russia has 0

We can see this discrepancy between Russia and NATO in force projection from the aircraft carriers. A modern fighter jet can’t fly that far without refueling. So aircraft carriers are important for force projection if a country wants to use its air combat capabilities in a foreign country. Air power is of course of supreme importance in a modern war.

We often hear of US carriers sent to one or other location in the world.

The US has 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Generally at any time some are in service, some are getting ready to deploy and some are being repaired. Half way through their 50 year lifetime they need a full overhaul and repair which takes years.

For background see: A look at where the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers are now (it is out of date but explains the basics).

Typically four will be in action at any time. You can use their “Fleet Tracker” page to check where they are at any time (it’s not secret, you can’t hide a nuclear powered aircraft carrier fleet :) )

This shows the four currently in service as of writing this Each is the center of a strike force. The ones marked ARG are Amphibious Ready Groups.

For the latest positions see Fleet Tracker page

UK has two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (conventionally powered)

UK: Queen Elizabeth class

. France has one nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle.

China has three aircraft carriers.

India has two aircraft carriers, one bought from the Soviet Union and one that they built themselves, recently commissioned.

So what about Russia’s aircraft carriers? Where are they? Well Russia has NONE. None that actually work. One that has been out of service since 2018 and not likely to be ready for action any time soon.

TEXT ON GRAPHIC:

Of the 4 earlier Soviet era aircraft carriers, 1 was scrapped, 2 were sold to theme parks in China and one was sold to the Indian navy

Russia's only aircraft carrier, "that cursed bucket of bolts" the Admiral Kuznetsov.

Out of service since 2018. Russia seems to have given up on it for now.

Russia sent its crew to fight in Ukraine leaving it uncrewed.

Photo: Russian aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov"

US has by far the largest global reach of any country by way of force projection - 750 bases throughout the world

The US is the country with the largest global presence in the world by far, 750 bases in at least 80 countries. Here is a graphic summarizing the US overseas military bases

From: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive

CC by SA Aljazeera https://www.aljazeera.com/terms-and-conditions

Then we have the French and UK bases - as well as some others from other NATO countries.

Let’s compare with Russia - it lost its only foreign bases in Syria, after HTS overthrew Assad’s regime in Syria.

TEXT ON GRAPHIC:

Russia can't fight globally (US, France and UK can)

Putin would likek to get back the former Soviet Union states

- but knows it is impossible

- many former Soviet states and Warsaw pact countries are now in NATO

Russia like China covers a large land area with a huge border to defend.

It has NEVER had any interest in an overseas empire.

Russia is so weak it LOST its only foreign sea port outside the former Soviet Union

- Tartus (5) on the Mediterranean
- so it now has no warm-water (ice free) port with easy access to the Mediterranean until the war ends and the Black Sea opens

Graphic shows:

Russia and Belarus (light red)

NATO (yellow)

Other close allies of the UK (Australia and New Zealand) (purple)

French foreign bases (purple)

UK foreign bases (dark blue)

Russian foreign bases (dark red)

Graphic combines Russian foreign bases: List of Russian military bases abroad - Wikipedia

UK foreign bases: Overseas military bases of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

French foreign bases Overseas military bases of France - Wikipedia

For the roughly 750 US military bases see: Infographic: History of US interventions in the past 70 years

Also, coloured in by hand (floodfill) the member states of NATO Member states of NATO - Wikipedia

And in pale purple: Australia and New Zealand which are very close allies of the UK though of course not in NATO as they are in the southern hemisphere far from the North Atlantic.

So now, is Putin going to start a fight with NATO?

No, of course not. He knows he is way outmatched.

Why Putin will never use nukes

It NEVER makes sense for Russia to use nukes EVER.

And this explains why we do NOT risk a world war at all from any of these news stories.

SEE ALSO

CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL

You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com

Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.

FOR MORE HELP

To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks

Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly

• Facebook group Doomsday Debunked

Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.

SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS

You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.

CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date

NEW SHORT DEBUNKS

I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.

I often write them up as “short debunks”

See Latest short debunks for new short debunks

I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:

. doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social

I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.

I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.

TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS

If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:

BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal

If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.

They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.

Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.

Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.

I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.

There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:

BLOG: Doing what matters at times of stress
— new WHO booklet to help with mental health during COVID19 pandemic

BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack

BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties

PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD COMMENT ON POST SET UP FOR IT

PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:

INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT HERE:

Post to comment on, with off topic potentially scary comments - or send me a private message - or use our group on Facebook

The reason is I often can’t respond to comments for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else

Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.

It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.

It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here.

This is specifically about anything that might scare people on a different topic.

PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE

This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.

We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.

If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.

But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.

If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.

It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.