Eh, put it on the tab. Millennials have never known stability anyways, they'd probably get uncomfortable if their lives stopped staggering from one externally-imposed crisis to another.
I used to live in Brisbane which had two "one in 100 year" floods in relatively quick succession: 2011 and 2022. When the second one came there was some talk about communicating the risk more effectively. Instead of saying "one in 100 year" it would be better to say there is like, a 0.2% chance of major flooding every year.
In what sense is 'one in 100 year' equivalent to '0.2% every year'? With the latter you'd expect 0.2 of them in 100 years?
(Totally agree the phrasing is misleading to the layman though, which is really the only reason for it to exist anyway, in an attempt to be more relatable.)
Not likely. The 60’s had riots, Vietnam, political assassinations, Cuban missile crisis and ongoing Cold War MAD fears. The 1910-1940’s were jam packed with world wars, the Great Depression, Spanish flu, and more. And before that a quarter of all children died young. Every generation ever. What’s actually unprecedented is having a few years between crises where things are actually pretty ok!
Shhhhh, you're harshing the millennial vibe. Remember that due to their constant suffering the millennials are the most empathetic generation ever and everyone else are the narcissists.
Probably 9/11. The resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were largely fought by Millennials (with some gen-z nearer to the end, I think—but the initial invasions heavily involved "elder millennials" [EDIT: and x/y "cuspers", especially for Afghanistan], with younger millennials involved in the long middle period). Though Vietnam (among other wars, but it seems most-comparable) was easily within living memory at the time, so I'm not so sure about "once in a lifetime" for the wars. That kind of wildly-successful attack on the US, though—that part might more-or-less qualify.
The US exports military vehicles all over the world, and often is fighting against forces using them, in actual wars (as opposed to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is between Russia and Ukraine). We gave $18 billion in military equipment to the Taliban last year. That Ukraine has US military equipment means very little.
The US is providing security assistance to Ukraine, and condemns Russia's advance, but the US is not fighting a war in Ukraine
Almost every war everywhere is fighting with AK's somewhere in the mix, often on both sides. Arms is a very dirty industry and many governments play it, often with proxy dealers to allow them to be arms (da-dish) length and offer plausible deniability. Very often, a superpower or country ends up being shot at with the weapons it provided years or decades earlier.