Will there ever be a nuclear war ?

Post Reply New Topic

DP ( sorry)

Last edited by memesplice on 29 Mar 2010, 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

How do you teach monkeys not to throw poo at each other?

I'm still waiting for the punchline?

simple- by perching a pooliceman in each monkey tree.

Vg Blabby

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGvD5OSkJ_Q[/youtube]

I believe that a war between two or more nuclearpower states (especially involving China against NATO) will happen in the next decades, but I don't think it would be a nuclear war : it would cause the almost full-destruction of the belligerents.

i am almost positive that i read that fact in my geography textbook. also, the al queda is reported to operate in countries even where the majority is not muslim.

NATO and China don't really have anything to do with each other. The only thing that would call for NATO involvement would be a direct strike by China against NATO member countries (as opposed to, say, invading Taiwan.)

In my estimation:

The US isn't stupid enough to start a nuclear war*.
Russia isn't stupid enough to start a nuclear war.
Britain isn't stupid enough to start a nuclear war, and (uniquely, bizarrely) possibly wouldn't use nukes even in retaliation.
France isn't stupid enough to start a nuclear war.
China isn't stupid enough to start a nuclear war.
India isn't stupid enough to start a nuclear war.
Pakistan isn't quite stupid enough to start a nuclear war, yet.
The DPRK isn't quite stupid enough to start a nuclear war, yet.
Israel isn't quite stupid enough to start a nuclear war, yet.

Germany, Belgium, Turkey, Italy, Holland are unable to use their (US provided) weapons without US approval, and aren't stupid enough to start a nuclear war anyway.

Once Iran gets the bomb, they'll be not quite stupid enough, yet.

Any terrorist group that obtains a nuclear weapon is probably stupid enough to use it.

I don't think I've left anyone out.

I'd put terrorist use of a single small nuke on New York as the most likely candidate for the next nuclear weapon to be used in anger. Followed by terrorist use of a single small nuke against Washington or London. Followed distantly by India-Pakistan or unilateral use by Israel against its neighbours, or the DPRK against a US CBG.



Seriously, Shi'as and Sunnis don't get along, and Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'a. There are some Sunnis in Iran, but they aren't a major force AFAIK.
Certainly AQ (it's probably not right to speak of them as a single overarching group; better to say Wahhabi fundy groups) operate all over, but it's more likely that Pakistani dissidents would steal them a bomb or the DPRK would sell them one than that the Iranians would give them one.

Pfft. All cheerful stuff.


*they'd probably like to, as would many of the nuclear powers, but the world public cannot distinguish between nuclear weapons, so the use of a (relatively) harmless nuclear bunker buster would be treated worldwide as an atrocity beyond measure.

[quote="Raptor"]There's no telling. It all depends on who has them, how stable they are, and how well they control access to them.
Right now I don't worry so much about ICBM's but more about a ship coming into a major port city with a high yield nuke in the cargo hold and it being detonated right there.[/quote

How about tac nukes or "dirty bombs" being shipped in piecemeal in containers and assembled right here in the U.S.A. by Martyrs. That is definitely a possibility. Pakistan has nuclear technology and fissile material. How long will it take for the Pakistanis to put this material in the hands of their Muslim buddies?

But one does not even need nukes. How about an 18 wheeler loaded with C4 and driven by Ibrihim and Abdul, the Martyrs, and blowing itself up in one of the Hudson River tunnels in New York City. Or botulin toxin being tossed in the reservoirs feeding New York?

ruveyn

I don't think teaching monkeys not to throw poop is a very good use of time or energy. It's easier to get out of the way of the poop. But when the poop is nuclear weapons and all the world is a theatre of war... hmmmm, I'm at a loss. Learn to enjoy having s**t on your head?

Last edited by Moog on 29 Mar 2010, 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

What is the thinking behind this statement?

ideally one should try to be an active citizen, but sometimes i wonder, even if change occurs, every new improvement also brings a new set of problems. all these issues stem from billions of people trying to cooperate, since our more industrialized world requires trade and cooperation.

i think i am beginning to like plants and flowers better than people since they are peaceful and only contribute positively to our environment. not to mention that animals have never used nuclear weapons.

Nah, there'll never be a big, planet-smashing nuclear war. The nuclear arms race during the Cold War was really just a case of macho posturing between the USA & the USSR, for a start - because both sides, as nutty as they were, were still smart enough to realise that nuclear war would mean mutually-assured destruction (which I will hereafter refer to MAD, for short. Pretty apt, no? ), even if they came within a whisker of it during the Cuban Missile Crisis (my mum has told me that she was actually really frightened that the world was going to end - and she was only about five at the time).

However, some newer nuclear nations (like, say, North Korea or Iran) might well be up for some localised bomb-chucking, especially if they think they can get away with a first-strike victory against a non-nuclear neighbour - although in Iran's case, the chances of MAD are somewhat increased since their most likely target would be Israel, a country which is very likely to have its own nuclear deterrent because of its close ties with the USA. It all depends on whether those countries are willing to risk MAD in order to punch their enemy in the face with a big fat radioactive fist...

When a UK prime minister takes office they write four identical letters, one to the commander of each of the UK's nuclear ballistic missile submarines; they're held very securely inside the submarines and destroyed when the next PM takes over. They say whether to retaliate in the event of a nuclear attack that kills the government. Obviously that can be different for each PM. The options are supposedly: a) do it, b) don't do it c) you decide and d) place yourself under Australian or US command.

Or so I heard - The Human Button is a fascinating BBC documentary on the policies and equipment of the UK strategic deterrent - it should be very interesting listening for everyone reading this thread.

Hopefully Australia wont be a big target, we have no nukes (apparently) and a tiny population, not to mention a msaavie country, it's doubtful that use a nuke here.

Hopefully...

Perhaps, if countries with insane leadership are permitted to have long distance nuclear weapons, then yes there will be nuclear weapon fire exchanges for a few hours.