Why do you believe NSA spying decreases the risk of nuclear war, or helps stave off climate change?

Also, it's not that we "love privacy", it's that we dislike oppression. And believe you me - most people in my part of the world know very well how the US is oppressing them through military and intelligence means. We don't want to live under the US' boot, and the NSA is part of that boot.

I didn't say anything about spying staving off climate change. That's pretty much a done deal, at least to the extent of destroying our current civilization. We've been in free fall to that, for at least a decade.

And about nuclear war. Although I'm not expert, it seems pretty obvious that uncertainty increases the risk of war.

Sure, I hate oppression. And I'm not into oppressing others.

But the problem is all the assholes who are driven to oppress others. If I could snap my fingers, and have them all die instantly, I would. But that just ain't gonna happen.

And indeed, it's arguable that they've been selected for, since the development of agriculture and animal husbandry. I got that from Morgan's Black Man.

So anyway, I just do what I can for myself and those close to me, and what I can to help others. I don't focus so much on changing the system. Given how people are, it seems kinda pointless.

You could argue that uncertainty reduces the risk of war because you're only starting wars where you're reasonably certain that you can win. Uncertainty about your adversary's capabilities then prevents war.

Too much uncertainty can also risk war. It all depends on what you're uncertain about.

MAD doctrine is based on both sides being reasonably sure neither can get away with a first strike. There is interest in having that fact independently verifiable; spying is both providing that verification and serving as an incentive against overstating your actual capabilities.

Gives those who get a kick out of war and conflict something to do that isn't lob nukes at each other.

Same reason you want layers of government with progression at a small scale available to many. So all the people with political ambitions aren't all trying to start their own governments and revolutions.

Busy is stability.

To be fair, I don't think a search warrant is oppression if used correctly. If there was something analogous for encryption I wouldn't mind. Problem is an "encryption search warrant" likely would happen without anyone knowing about it.

Okay, but these big picture perspectives don't materialize in a vacuum. It's not just this binary do-or-die nuclear deterrence that such a mindset acquiesces to.

The rubber meets the road, and real names are drawn from a hat somewhere along the line. After we shoo away that pesky threat of hypersonic implosion triggered plutonium cores raining down upon our heads, the sun rises on a new day, and we have to put on coffee and make breakfast.

And some people ride in limousines from hotels for brunch, and some people ride the bus to a fast food job at the ass crack of dawn.

And you can bet that whomsoever holds the keys to these cryptosystems that serve as nuclear-proof umbrellas keeping our heads dry from the oh-so-inevitable megatons of explosive fire, they'll never drive a garbage truck, they're kids won't have to worry about flunking out of college, and none of them will ever get cold in the winter, unless they want to on their holiday ski trip.

And it's no accident, the way such things work.

So, maybe this whole nuclear war thing? Maybe it's always been a big shakedown.

Maybe, sometimes you buy a gun with the full knowledge that keeping it clean, safe and ready for reliable use is going to book your Sundays solid from now on, and whoops, the cost of gun ownership, it just so happens, is never attending Sunday mass again.

Don’t understand the gun paragraph

It's something like people who are into violence being immoral, I suspect. Not that I'd pick religion as a reliable measure for morality.

It is arguable that the US and Russia have collectively committed a crime against humanity that's comparable to genocide. Not in any simple numeric sense, of course. But even 1% annual risk of killing a billion people, protracted over several decades, is a pretty big number.

And yes, humanity is highly stratified. Socially, economically, whatever. But that just reflects what we are. Hate on it all you want, it's not gonna change.

OK, so reckless endangerment is a crime.[0] It's especially serious when weapons are involved, and when children are endangered. How does that not apply?

Except, of course, that there's no body with the requisite authority or power. But maybe someday there will be.

0) https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/reckless-enda...

And who is creating the risk of global nuclear war, if not those very same governments?

Most of it is economic and political espionage, not spying on each others' military secrets. That happens too, sure, but none of the other stuff is necessary to protect us from nuclear war.