u/DFWUnhinged

Alright this is probably the most unhinged timeline I’ve thought of so far but hear me out.
Instead of tensions building with Iran or any drawn-out regional conflict, Donald Trump just decides on day one of his presidency to completely flip the global chessboard and launches a nuclear strike on Israel before anything even escalates.
No alliances, no buildup, no “coalition of the willing” speeches, just immediate chaos.
Would this somehow prevent a wider Middle East war by removing a central flashpoint, or does it instantly trigger global retaliation and basically speedrun WWIII?
Like:
Does NATO immediately collapse?
Do countries like Russia/China step in as “stabilizers” or take advantage?
Does the U.S. fragment internally over something that extreme?
Is there any version of this where it doesn’t spiral into full nuclear exchange within days?
From what I’ve seen in other scenarios, once nukes are used, escalation tends to be unavoidable and basically ends in total catastrophe anyway.
Curious how you’d map this timeline out because I genuinely can’t see a path where this doesn’t go completely off the rails within like 48 hours.

Instead of Donald Trump, the country somehow elects Charlie Kirk. No explanation, just straight to President Kirk. He does a term, then 2020 hits and Joe Biden wins like normal, except now he’s inheriting a reality that already feels slightly off. Then in 2024, Kirk just comes back and wins again like a boss fight you thought you already beat.

Meanwhile Trump never runs at all. He goes all-in on Turning Point USA and spends like a decade touring college campuses, arguing with 19-year-olds non-stop. At some point he basically becomes a roaming event. You’re walking to class and there’s just a crowd and someone’s like “yeah Trump spawned again.”

By like 2028 this is all just normal. President Kirk (again), Biden was the intermission, and Trump is out there speedrunning college debates like it’s a competitive esport. Would the Iran war still happen? Would Charlie Kirk still get assassinated?

Is London actually as multicultural as people say, or is that a bit overstated?

I always hear it described as one of the most diverse cities in the world, but I’m more curious what that actually feels like day to day rather than just looking at stats or headlines.

Like:

- does it genuinely feel diverse in everyday life depending on where you are in the city?

- are different communities pretty integrated, or more separate in practice?

- do people from different backgrounds actually mix much socially, or stay in their own circles?

And how would you compare it to places like New York City or Toronto, which also get called very multicultural?

Basically just trying to understand what it’s like on the ground vs the reputation.

Just watched Stalker and I genuinely don’t know how to feel about it.

It’s extremely slow. Like… long stretches where almost nothing happens, minimal dialogue, just walking, water, silence. Normally I’d check out of something like that pretty fast, but for whatever reason I didn’t. It kind of locks you in if you let it.

It didn’t feel like a normal movie at all. More like you’re just sitting inside a mood or a philosophy for a few hours. There’s tension, but not in a typical way. No real payoff either, at least not in a conventional sense.

Closest comparison I can come up with is parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, maybe a little bit of Apocalypse Now in terms of the “journey into something deeper/psychological,” but even those feel way more structured and accessible. This felt way more abstract and stripped down.

A few things I’m curious about:

What do you think the Zone actually represents? Is it supposed to be something concrete or more symbolic?

Is there a “right” way to watch this, or is it really just about how it hits you personally?

What other films would you even compare this to? I feel like I don’t have a good reference point

And honestly… who is this movie for? Like what kind of viewer actually loves this?

I can’t tell if I liked it, or if I just respect it for what it’s doing. It’s definitely sticking with me though.

I’ve been thinking about this and can’t quite figure it out. I’m American, and given how big the US is and how large the music industry is here, you’d expect it to dominate completely. But when it comes to bands, it feels like the UK has had a huge impact for decades.

You’ve got The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, then later Oasis and Radiohead. It just seems unusually consistent for a smaller country.

In the US, there are obviously massive artists, but a lot of them are solo acts, especially in pop and hip hop. The UK seems to produce bands that end up having global reach.

Is there something cultural behind that, or is it more about how the music scene is set up? And do people in the UK feel like that’s still true today or more of a past thing?

Genuinely curious because it feels disproportionate given the size difference.