Page 3 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 95
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Feb 2009, 9:03 am

Anubis wrote:
You underestimate the ability of humans to survive. This will be humanity's greatest challenge yet, and one that will bring it closer together as a species.


When I was 18 I had a good deal more optimism also. The people most likely to have survival equipment are the ones in charge now. They are the rich, the powerful and the most greedy and self serving sector of humanity. They are the ones who got us into this mess and in all probability they will be the ones lobbing the last powerful atomic weapons at each other to finish things off.



parts
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2005
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,579
Location: New England

14 Feb 2009, 4:46 pm

Ahaseurus2000 wrote:
parts wrote:
You are assuming an all out shoot them all off war. I don't think this will happen but think it will be more limited


Did the US military drop Mutually Assured Destruction ( MAD ) from it's nuclear policy?



You are assuming the US military will be setting them off not one of the nuclear states or a terrorist


_________________
"Strange is your language and I have no decoder Why don't make your intentions clear..." Peter Gabriel

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php


Mindtear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 721
Location: UK

15 Feb 2009, 2:11 am

I think some group using a so called "Dirty Bomb" is more likely than any state however unstable using nuclear weapons on each other. It has become an international concern of the number of X-ray machines and such that go missing every year.

Although if any state were to have designs on starting a war with atomic weapons i think it would be far more nefarius than using balistic missiles. How long to shipping containers sit in the worlds docks awaiting customs for example. It would cripple trade and no one would even have to claim responsibility.



The_Cucumber
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 514

15 Feb 2009, 9:47 am

Ahaseurus2000 wrote:

Did the US military drop Mutually Assured Destruction ( MAD ) from it's nuclear policy?


Mutually Assured Destruction only annihilates the entire human population if the vast majority of nations get involved. Even if 2 world powers nuke each other into oblivion, everyone else will be okay.


_________________
The improbable goal: Fear nothing, hate nothing, and let nothing anger you.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Feb 2009, 12:32 pm

The_Cucumber wrote:
Ahaseurus2000 wrote:

Did the US military drop Mutually Assured Destruction ( MAD ) from it's nuclear policy?


Mutually Assured Destruction only annihilates the entire human population if the vast majority of nations get involved. Even if 2 world powers nuke each other into oblivion, everyone else will be okay.


Semi O.K The fallout will cause cancers and other damage far from the target areas. There is also the possibility of a nuclear winter.

ruveyn



Ahaseurus2000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,546
Location: auckland

19 Feb 2009, 11:43 pm

parts wrote:
Ahaseurus2000 wrote:
parts wrote:
You are assuming an all out shoot them all off war. I don't think this will happen but think it will be more limited


Did the US military drop Mutually Assured Destruction ( MAD ) from it's nuclear policy?



You are assuming the US military will be setting them off not one of the nuclear states or a terrorist


I'm more curious about about the response policy toward threats / actions by other nation-states involving Nuclear Strikes.


_________________
Life is Painful. Suffering is Optional. Keep your face to the Sun and never see your Shadow.