Decades after making the first nuclear bomb, we still try to remove their existence from the face of the earth, or rather the “politicians grasp”. The famous quote from Albert Einstein tells us a truth:

“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” – Albert Einstein

We all understand the simplicity of his logical mind; if the only weapons were sticks and stones, there would be no war.

But still our world leaders portray in front of their military forces, and show us their insanely dangerous weapons whenever possible.

Is this because they want to show us how intelligent Einstein was relative to their own capacities, or because they want to scare everybody into submission.

Either way, it would be fairly simple to calculate that if the weapons the politicians possess are put into use, it would increase the likelihood that their life will end equally fast as millions (billions) of people.

But the most worrying fact is that politicians will at some point be replaced, and the mental capacity relative to Einstein’s IQ will change. This mental gap in combination with a very discontent population, will increase the probability that nuclear-weapons will be put into use.

We are not going to speculate what the future will bring, but try to enlighten some of the facts related to nuclear weapons and how our world leaders behaves in contradiction to what the public would understand as a “peaceful future”.

Fear, paranoia and instability

From a definition of fear:

«Fear is a feeling induced by perceived danger or threat that occurs in certain types of organisms, which causes a change in metabolic and organ functions and ultimately a change in behaviour, such as fleeing, hiding, or freezing from perceived traumatic events»

Everybody understands this feeling, and how this can unfold when the enemy are equally fearful and with insanely scary weapons. The outfall of such a situation will hopefully be freezing; most likely it will cause a change in behaviour without any form of causality-evaluations prior to an unpredictable response.

Nobody forgets the two first bombs that were dropped, and the agonising pain most people experienced before dying from some form of nuclear radiation.

When world leaders portray in front of their weapons of mass destruction, they communicate fear and the effects this eventually will have on other people and nations. Do they believe that people will be calm and submissive when their life depends on food rather than the fear of a nuclear threat?

It’s a rather stupefying attitude, since most people understands that that leaders eventually will be substituted as a result of the same mentality or the uproar of the population.

“Paranoia is an instinct or thought process which is believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of delusion and irrationality. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. the American colloquial phrase, “Everyone is out to get me”).”

When espionage was founded, a key element was the following: «One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements»

This has changed quite remarkably since the early days, with the introduction of social media and digital surveillance. “Everyone is out to get me”, is a phrase that is probably more relevant today, than ever before. Truths and lies are amplified through the digital surveillance systems and the paranoia is increasing due to the definition of people’s online behaviour. Is it possible to find an enemy in an ocean of hatred?

It is reasonable to understand that fear induced by paranoia is the main cause to a leader’s military forces and nuclear threats.

But, to understand nuclear and military threats, the most vital knowledge is the connection between ownership and freedom. Loss of ownership will most certainly be connected to lack of freedom, thus distrust and instability. The fear or such a loss is often muted by the inclusion of weapons. Wars are likely to occur if ownership needs to be protected, or if a nation experience loss of ownership.

It would be fairly simple to conclude that American foreign military forces are a protection mechanism due to fear and paranoia, not due to aggression.

Privately owned fear and paranoia

The resent decades the military construct in the western world, in particular America, have been privatised.

This means that a military economy has been created, where this construct is now suddenly representing an ownership; an ownership for the protection of ownership.

It is fairly simple to understand the logical disconnection between the protection of governmental ownership (borders), and the company who want to protect the government for the purpose of its private ownership. At some point the military construct might embark on a protection of ownership beyond its purpose, since most companies want to increase its ownership.

Such logic, is of course an amplifier of fear and paranoia due to the effect, an efficient increase in ownership to the private military organisations.

The American military budget is giving us an indication of the excessive spending on paranoia and fear. If this budget was used on climate science, technologies, future innovation, healthcare and other positive addition to our world, the American society would probably still be the greatest in the world.

Sadly enough, this truth is open for discussion, since we understand from the budgets that some of the biggest companies in the world are related to military forces, who feed on fear, paranoia and group mentalities.

Ownership and freedom                       

The simple solution for peace, is ownership and freedom.

When the entire world embraced capitalism as the new world order, they embraced ownership, peace and stability since ownership is directly linked to freedom. But they also embraced paranoia and distrust, the direct result of the fear of loosing ownership.

Basically, the entire military budget could be replaced by the same simple principle. Give everybody stronger ownership, and the fear of losing it will be thousand times stronger than fear of any man with a gun. The man with a gun is only feared because he can use his gun for the purpose of thieving.

This mentality is easily understood by looking at some of the old laws in Texas, where you can shoot anyone that trespasses onto your property. This law indicates that ownership is more vital than a thief’s life.

The modern laws in many mature civilisations are much more efficient today, where the ownership is protected through laws and regulations, keeping the thieves at bay. The gun has effectively been replaced by paper and efficient government of your ownership.

Again, we can mention American foreign military forces, and try to understand how much foreign ownership they represent. Is this an ownership connected to freedom, or lack thereof? Some countries have resisted American involvement and “freedom”, since foreign ownership is more likely to represent a lack of freedom through multinational ownership.

But either way, this ownership is fairly dynamic, since ownership cannot be lost or created. Most foreign ownership will at some point become a local ownership, since the knowledge and employment are contained in the population.

For the purpose of this discussion we must state an important fact:

Ownership can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.

Ownership is following the law of energy-conservation, due to the physical nature of ownership. All ownership is directly connected to some form of physical object, and it must be owned by a human or a company owned by a human.

Some might argue against this due to the existence of money and financial institutions. But money does not represent ownership, but a transition of ownership. This fact is confirmed when you want to evaluate money, something that is impossible unless you compare it to a physical object with a value (gold, silver, property etc.).

Basically, this means that governments are not losing any ownership as long as their government’s borders are contained. In some regards, ownership can change due to export industries where ownership is transferred and not contained, and is the cause to the zero-sum-game, through import and export taxation, depending if the goods transferred is representing a loss of ownership or not.

It is fairly easy to understand that ownership is the key to removing insanely dangerous weapons, and removing military forces. But it is not ownership that is the problem, but fear of losing it, and the distrust connected to this fear.

Distrust due to ownership

When the Russian government annexed Crimea into the Russian Federation, most western civilisations reacted to an unlawful inclusion and expansion of their ownership. Some would say that this happened through a democratic vote, making the increase in ownership legal.

It is the fluid behaviour of ownership that is the basis of right or wrong (trust) in this matter. If borders are not preserved, nations need military forces to protect them. If trust is broken, bigger military forces are needed to maintain the distrust.

This is seen in some of the hot-zones in the world, where some people belive that violations of a nations ownership seem to be a great thing since it increases their unilateral interests.

The logic is expressed in the following relations:

Distrust is connected to military forces, but military forces are not connected to distrust. Trust is not connected to military forces, but military forces are connected to Trust.

The logic is not very hard to understand. You will probably invest in military forces if you are very rich and distrust someone, but don’t necessarily need to distrust a man with military forces. If you trust someone, it is unlikely that you invest in military forces, and if you have military forces you will increase your feeling of trust.

Basically the directional logic tells us that we do not need military forces if we can put trust in international laws and regulations. Since distrust is the strongest element in this logic relation, we need incredible strong and trustworthy agreements, where all participants have to deny any unlawful increases in ownership.

We can all understand the following logic:

Ownership and freedom is protected by military forces, due to distrust. Trust is the only remedy to such stupidity.

If we embrace global ownership, for the purpose of protecting countries and their borders, we will have peace. All the money used for military purposes can be replaced by investments in peaceful regulations. This is a shitload of money far beyond anybody’s imagination, and would probably change the world to a very happy place fast.

NATO = DISTRUST

Since ownership normally is protected by military forces due to distrust, it is interesting to investigate what purpose NATO has. Are the member states thieves, and where their ownership needs a massive military force to replace the distrust toward other nations, or maybe it is the opposition who is thieves so that the distrust is balanced with such a massive military force.

When NATO’s leader, Jens Stoltenberg was as a young politician, he was promoting Norway’s exclusion from NATO (Aftenposten 23.02.1985). It is fairly simple to understand that a young intelligent individualist will oppose group-mentalities, but quite shocking to realise how fast this knowledge is lost when you become a professional politician.

The logic of military forces and distrust enables us to understand that both parties will distrust each other. Not because a military force creates distrust, but because a military force is an indication of the other party’s distrust. The logic connected to having a military force is consequently amplifying distrust compared to trust.

Group mentalities

When you are young you can observe some obvious facts in relation to group mentalities. When partying in late hours some unknown stranger might become aggressive and violent towards others. Usually the collective forces will cooperate to put him down. But if the tyrant (bully) is a part of a group this creates an unbalance since the group suddenly seem to support the idiot who uses the group for the protection of his own aggression. The group who are the weak minority in this relation will of course be subdued and most likely extremely pissed off. At some point the collective opposition might need to call the professionals to get support to stabilise the situation. If not, the group amplifies the aggression from both parties, and the situation might turn into a bloody battle where some might be seriously harmed or killed.

Distrust is amplified in a group

The most interesting thing about group mentalities, is that groups seem to be convinced about their collective unity and decisions, without any regards to the opposing individual. Very often they disregard everything for the purpose of their own wrong-doing if they feel it is in their interest, even if this increases aggression towards their one-sided decisions.

If all nations was a part of NATO, you would not have any group mentality (NATO), and thus no distrust. Suddenly the distrust is a cooperative balance, where the individual (country/government) needs to trust the collective to gain their own individual freedom and ownership. The bully will then be exposed and put down by the collective forces, unless he can prove his innocence and prove that his aggressive behaviour is supported by truth. This is the normal balance in a community (democracy). The group is strong when they support the individual, and the individual cannot gain strength without the group.

This also indicates that trust increases if the number of members is higher, and decreases if the number is lower, just to state the obvious when governments try to create collective group mentalities like EU or United states of whatever. The reason for this is the nature of democracies where arguments usually creates results on the right side of the normally distributed intelligence quotient.

The solution is the simplest one:

An international law and military force governed by this law, where you seek help if a group mentality occurs, so that the protection of the individual is sustained. So instead of excluding nations, we should include them into a powerful international force, for the protection of ownership, democracies and individualism.

This will fast forward to a peaceful and lawful system, where the world leaders are not above the law, but must abide by it, a good way of organising a world where leaders still think that they are in touch with God, and stupidly enough believe they are more powerful and intelligent than Einstein.

Creating such a system is probably more vital now than ever, because increases in populations will eventually create a problem with ownership. As mentioned, ownership and the possible loss of ownership increases distrust, and will certainly include weapons or a military force.

This can be seen during mass immigration. Immigration is often a result of loss of ownership, where the end result is the movement of “loss of ownership” when people move across borders. This increases distrust, right wing politics, antisemitism and racism. A smart man would say that we need to be nice to those who are fleeing from climate-changes, but an intelligent man would probably conclude that borders and walls (ownership) are “damping elements” if the flow increases beyond manageable.

Unless the individual (country) is protected from loss of ownership and aggression, the effect is distrust, instability and increased group mentality.

Conclusion

Stupidity amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (SASER) is a direct consequence of nuclear weapons or more generally as military forces.

The world leaders should try to act and behave as they are intelligent creatures and operating according to logical conclusions rather than based on a radioactive stimulus that induces fear, distrust and stupidity.

We have all seen what can be done when ownership is gained, and what happens when it is lost.

If the loss is affecting millions/billions, we would like the response to be logically adequate, and a cooperative endeavour that ensures strong individualism, and where the ownership and freedom of nations are heavily protected.

All nations!

Notes About The Russian War in Ukraine

With the recent turmoil surrounding Volodymyr Zelenskyy, former U.S. President Donald Trump has accused him of gambling with World War III and millions of lives. Trump’s remarks suggest an attempt to pressure Zelenskyy into a peace deal by asserting that Ukraine does not hold the best cards in negotiations.

To understand the roles of the major players in this geopolitical crisis, let’s examine the chain of events that led to the current situation:

Key Historical Events

The EU Association Agreement & Economic Aid (2013)

• The European Union proposed a trade agreement with Ukraine that would integrate the country further into European markets.
• Then-President Viktor Yanukovych rejected the deal under Russian pressure, opting instead for a $15 billion loan from Moscow.
• This sparked the Euromaidan protests, as many Ukrainians saw closer EU ties as a path to modernization and economic growth.

U.S. and EU Support for NGOs

• Western governments and organizations funded civil society initiatives promoting democracy, anti-corruption measures, and independent media.
• These initiatives strengthened opposition to Yanukovych, who was widely seen as corrupt and beholden to Russian interests.

NATO Joint Military Exercises

• Ukraine participated in NATO’s Partnership for Peace and conducted joint military exercises, increasing Russia’s concerns over Western military influence in its neighborhood.
• Russia viewed NATO’s outreach as a direct challenge to its historical sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

Western Diplomatic Involvement

• U.S. and EU officials played an active role in supporting the Ukrainian opposition during Euromaidan.
• After Yanukovych fled in February 2014, Western nations helped mediate the formation of a new government.

The Euromaidan Protests (November 2013 – February 2014)

• Demonstrations against Yanukovych’s rejection of the EU deal escalated into mass protests demanding government reform and an end to Russian influence.
• Russia’s President Vladimir Putin characterized this as a Western-orchestrated coup, a claim used to justify later interventions.

Russia’s Military Response

• Late February 2014: Russian troops (without insignias, later called “little green men”) seized control of key infrastructure in Crimea.
• March 16, 2014: A controversial referendum in Crimea allegedly showed overwhelming support for joining Russia, though the process was widely condemned as illegitimate by international observers.
• April 2014: Russia-backed separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence, leading to conflict with Ukrainian forces.
• 2014: Russia’s actions violated the Budapest Memorandum (1994), in which Ukraine had relinquished its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the U.S., and the UK.

Further Escalation

• July 17, 2014: Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over separatist-controlled territory, killing 298 civilians. Investigations linked the missile to Russian forces, increasing global condemnation.
• February 24, 2022: Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, citing NATO expansion, “denazification,” and protection of Russian-speaking populations as justifications.

The Broader Geopolitical Game

Ukraine’s desire for peace has transformed into an international standoff where global powers are navigating complex political and economic interests. The EU, U.S., and UK have extended military and financial support, yet at times, their actions appear as strategic maneuvering rather than decisive intervention.

In the contest between democratic nations and an authoritarian regime, Putin seemingly recognized he was losing influence over Ukraine and resorted to war, despite Russia’s previous commitments under the Budapest Memorandum. While Ukraine had engaged in joint military exercises with NATO, no comparable exercises occurred with Russia—perhaps because Kyiv saw no strategic or economic benefit in such cooperation.

The U.S. Role and Donald Trump’s Influence

2019: Trump temporarily withheld military aid to Ukraine, allegedly pressuring Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden’s son, leading to Trump’s first impeachment.

Russia Policy: Trump praised Putin, criticized NATO, and delayed enforcing strict sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline, fostering uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy.

Mixed Messages: His administration’s inconsistent stance on European security may have emboldened Russia’s aggression.

Zelenskyy’s Role

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, alongside his people, has remained in Ukraine, resisting Russian aggression rather than seeking exile. He did not start this war, nor did he provoke it, but he now bears the burden of an international political struggle involving some of the world’s largest economies. The U.S., UK, and EU have been actively involved in Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty, making any suggestion of Ukrainian isolation from Western support misleading and rather stupefying.

Attempting to negotiate peace by ceding Ukrainian territory, effectively rewarding aggression—would set a dangerous precedent. Beyond the territorial losses, Ukraine would also forfeit significant coal and mineral resources, making such an agreement economically disastrous.

NATO’s Role

The credibility of NATO is at stake. If the alliance and Mark Rutte fails to step up its support and ensure Ukraine’s freedom, its purpose as a security organization could come into question. Ukraine’s defense is not just a regional issue but a defining moment in modern geopolitical history, shaping the balance between democracy and authoritarianism in the 21st century.

Russia’s Role: The Consequences of Victory or Defeat

A Russian “victory”, whether through territorial gains or an imposed peace, would likely deepen its global isolation, prolonging a Cold War-style standoff. Sanctions, severed European energy ties, and reliance on China could weaken Russia’s economy and internal stability rather than strengthen its power.

Conversely, a military “defeat” could force a reassessment of Russia’s role in the global order. Historically, losses, like the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, have sparked political transformation. A Ukrainian “victory” might accelerate internal pressures for reform, potentially nudging Russia toward democratic changes, but if framed as a national humiliation, it could embolden hardliners instead.

For the West, balancing “victory” or “defeat” with pragmatism is key. If economic stability becomes Putin’s new narrative, he may frame himself as a leader who preserved Russia’s sovereignty while securing prosperity. However, this hinges on the Kremlin’s willingness to shift from authoritarianism and confrontation to cautious engagement. It seems futile that the UK, US, and EU will initiate a peace deal by ceding Ukrainian territory and giving Putin a territorial victory. The mineral deal Ukraine is signing with the US is a clear indication that territorial victory is close to non-negotiable.

To maintain power despite a territorial “failure”, Putin may attempt to redefine success. Shifting focus from military conquest to economic resilience, he could push for a new gas deal with the EU, possibly leveraging Nord Stream 2’s destruction or energy crises as justification. A controlled retreat, coupled with economic negotiations, could allow Putin to claim Russia defended its core interests while re-entering trade with Europe. Even such a ‘victory’ would be difficult, as EU gas revenues have long sustained Russia’s war efforts and authoritarianism.

We have an “elephant in the room”, and there is no door big enough for it to escape, unless they find some magic recipes in Hollywood. As Donald Trump so eloquently put it – “We will be speaking, and I think will perhaps do something that’ll be significant”.

Russia’s war, and continuous threats about using Nuclear weapons may give us some indications about if “Significant” will be nothing or something!