A nuclear WWIII will never happen. Dishonor will prevent it.

Post Reply New Topic

A nuclear WWIII will never happen. Dishonor will prevent it.

Wars are fought for honor and a nuclear WWII would have nothing but shame for the initiator of such a war.

Our leaders know that there would be no honor in a nuclear war that would destroy our environment and insure that there is no real winner. Any leader or military war machine under his command that would initiate such a war would know dishonor like the world has never seen. The hate for Hitler and his regime and ideology is still alive and well in the world and that hate would be dwarfed by the hate that the initiator of a third WWIII would feel from the world.

The main reason for that hate and denial of honor would stem from the fact that any nuclear war would be fought against cities and their citizen instead of having an honorable battlefield war. No leader or military force will dishonor itself the way the U.S. did in Japan. Honor in war comes from facing an enemy man to man and our technology has now made that impossible. There is no honor in killing innocent non-combatant citizens in their beds from thousands of miles away. Ordinary people know this and so do their leaders and military.

Mutual assured destruction says that any nuclear war will be self-genocide. Some who do not know why wars are fought, and honor sought, may think some leaders are foolish enough to initiate a nuclear war but forget that no high ranking military man, especially of Asian descent, would ever dishonor himself and his family by initiating such a war. Such a man of honor would never initiate such a dishonorable war. A man of honor would know though that he would not be doing his duty if he did not retaliate. Reciprocity is fair play and is honorable and duty and honor would force a reciprocal reply.

Do you understand the psychological principles at play shown above and do you agree?

Regards
DL

Sigh.

If humans always thought in long term and are always rational. I would agree with you but humans often react to immediate emotions. Often people get caught up in a contest of wills where one action leads to greater reaction which is countered by a greater reaction and rationality is lost.

A leader also might become convinced an adversary is going to attack first so they could decide to obliterate the other side as a preventative measure.

North Korea isn't the world. They're a tiny isolated country making threats. If they launch a nuke at whoever/wherever, then they get completely annihilated a couple of minutes later.

M.A D.

Knowing he would be destroying his own country and bringing dishonor to himself, his family and country would prevent his doing so.

Wars are fought for honor, not dishonor.

Regards
DL

Correct.

Regards
DL

I have watched Threads, which shows what civilization would be like after a nuclear exchange. The effects were devastating to the people in the timeline of the movie. It speaks to us why this should never happen.

-LegoMaster2149 (Written on October 12, 2017)

But people are not rational. Hitler might have invaded Russia for honor but it was not a smart rational decision, neither was declaring war on America. Very few people start wars with the intent of losing and bringing not only dishonor but humiliation and deprevation, and destruction. Yet countries that start wars lose them often. Like I said earlier some leader in the future is going to think my adversary is going to attack me first and destroy my country so why not attack first and destroy them also?, the use it or lose it mentality.

You are making the mistake of believing world leaders act on logic over emotions similar to aspies and that just because it has always been that way it will always be that way.

M.A.D. worked because the leaders of America and The Soviet Union were rational about nukes. The situation now is different. The more people have nukes the better chance of irrational people controlling them. The only constant in life in "Never Say Never"

All intelligent honorable people will agree.

Regards
DL

You may see yourself as irrational, but military people are not like you and have enough history to look at to know that genocide of the whole world will bring dishonor to those who would kill all those they love. All military people wish to wear their medals with honor, not with dishonor.

Retaliation is honorable, first strike brings only dishonor.

Regards
DL

Last edited by GnosticBishop on 12 Oct 2017, 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

I imagine that refers to a global nuclear war between superpowers. But unless things take a very strange dramatic turn, the problem with NK isn't going to result in a global nuclear war.

Feeding frenzy.

Need I say more?

Regards
DL

Right conclusion for the wrong reason.

What stops Kim from starting WWIII is not Confucian honor, nor is it MAD, but just the AD part of "MAD".

What stops him is not "mutual assured destruction", but just the assured destruction part. The assured destruction of his own country alone. The Norks are not in the same weight class as the USA on any level even including nukes. So its not even a symmetrical balance of power as with the old USSR (which was in our weight class in both conventional and in nuclear armament). So there cannot be anything "mutual" about the destruction. He could destroy one target (say Guam, or maybe even Seattle), and that's it. And he knows that his whole country would be flatten in response in minutes.

But that's not WWIII or anything close to a global world war. So I don't get why so many people are talking about Kim or Trump starting a third world war.

Every depiction of WWIII I've seen shows hundreds of missiles, not two or three, which as you say would be the total involved in a nuclear war between NK and the US. It is a horrifying idea to be sure. But nothing close to a world war.

Reasonable.
Point taken.

Regards
DL