Modern Global Nuclear War?

Sn1p3r187

Sn1p3r187

Carolinian Shaolin Monk
Do you think it's still possible? According to a lot of people within the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) they say it's highly unlikely during this time in the 21st century when you bring concepts like MAD to fruition and generally a lot of countries disarming and getting rid of old nuclear warheads. In their opinions the chance for a global nuclear war was less than 2% when it was jotted down. But due to the Russian aircraft shot down over Turkey, that possibility for one may have rose to 3.5%. In my opinion I don't think a global nuclear war is possible anymore. I still could happen but the chances are so low...That it's just better to say that in my lifetime for the next 84 years till 2100 that a global nuclear war just won't happen. But I am open to the thought of a limited nuclear war between say India and Pakistan or the possibility that terrorists or a rogue state may possibly get their hands on a nuclear weapon and use it to threaten, intimidate, o actually use it against a country. In NK's case likely launch a nuclear weapon towards Okinawa. The threat of a limited war is actually way higher than that of a global nuclear exchange. But there's a possibility a limited nuclear exchange can possibly lead to global exchange due to a higher build up of tensions. What do you think? Do you think global nuclear is possible? Do you it will happen between now and 2100? Do you think we would stop ourselves while we are ahead?
 
Realistically? Like you said. I doubt it.

The drawbacks of a nuclear war, even a limited one, far outweight the benefits you could gain.

Take India and Pakistan as best example. They had many larger and smaller conflicts going on since the independence of Pakistan. All of those pretty much stoped with both nations getting their hands onto nuclear weapons. Guess why. Some, if not many of their conflicts have territorial issues as source. What good is it to win a territory if it's polluted and uninhabitable.

Religious fanatism and hate aside, the leaders are usually rational enough that they value their life and power above anything else. So as long as you don't back them up in a corner, they would have no reason to use nuclear weapons. And this includes most terrorist organisations as well I think.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Realistically? Like you said. I doubt it.

The drawbacks of a nuclear war, even a limited one, far outweight the benefits you could gain.

Take India and Pakistan as best example. They had many larger and smaller conflicts going on since the independence of Pakistan. All of those pretty much stoped with both nations getting their hands onto nuclear weapons. Guess why. Some, if not many of their conflicts have territorial issues as source. What good is it to win a territory if it's polluted and uninhabitable.

Religious fanatism and hate aside, the leaders are usually rational enough that they value their life and power above anything else. So as long as you don't back them up in a corner, they would have no reason to use nuclear weapons. And this includes most terrorist organisations as well I think.
Click to expand...
You have a really good point there. But I have to say. To some people it's not about territory, it could simple wanton destruction of a group of people and using any means to make sure it happens. In North Korea's case, they just hate Japan for World War II and if they were to actually make a functioning nuclear weapon that's attachable to a rocket they would just be there to obliterate Japan into ashes and cinders.
 
And what would they gain from it? Because it is pretty obvious that the next thing NK will see is their nation turned into ashes by the US.

I mean, that is the whole problem behind it. Once you start to use nuclear weapons, you let the genie out of the bottle. And there is no way to tell what happens next.

Only one thing is clear, you will see a response. One way or another.

So unless the leadership of NK values their life and power less than anyone else, there is not much of a risk that they will use their nuclear weapons. If they even have some operational weapon.

And the same would go for any terrorist organisation really. There are simply weapons that possess to much of a risk, once you decide to use them, even to those that own them.
 
Last edited:
North Korea is in a catch 22 situation. They can´t improve without the goverment losing their reins they over the population.
 
A full nuclear exchange? No chance in hell. The countries that have a nuke stockpile would never use them due to the massive losses that would come with it. I'm not saying there can't be limited, ISOLATED use, like in the Middle East for example, but a global nuclear war? The probability is so low it's insignificant.

Economical and political warfare is the future of war. Not nuclear weapons.

.
 
Stone Cold Robert House said:
A full nuclear exchange? No chance in hell. The countries that have a nuke stockpile would never use them due to the massive losses that would come with it. I'm not saying there can't be limited, ISOLATED use, like in the Middle East for example, but a global nuclear war? The probability is so low it's insignificant.

Economical and political warfare is the future of war. Not nuclear weapons.

.
Click to expand...
Haha my dad usually says the same thing. He says the coming wars are likely going to fought on the tables and the stock markets.
 
Crni Vuk said:
And what would they gain from it? Because it is pretty obvious that the next thing NK will see is their nation turned into ashes by the US.

I mean, that is the whole problem behind it. Once you start to use nuclear weapons, you let the genie out of the bottle. And there is no way to tell what happens next.

Only one thing is clear, you will see a response. One way or another.

So unless the leadership of NK values their life and power less than anyone else, there is not much of a risk that they will use their nuclear weapons. If they even have some operational weapon.

And the same would go for any terrorist organisation really. There are simply weapons that possess to much of a risk, once you decide to use them, even to those that own them.
Click to expand...
Hmmm I see. But then again they could value their lives so little that they won't care anymore. But I do see your point and you are right there.
 
Sn1p3r187 said:
Haha my dad usually says the same thing. He says the coming wars are likely going to fought on the tables and the stock markets.
Click to expand...

And in poor countries
Remember, there's always the magnifigigantic arms industry, producing mindboggling ammounts of munition - a lot of it super high tech, super expensive, and you know... let's say any given country needs 100 missiles for defense.

Then what? They sell 100 missiles, each country goes "yuppers!" and the arms industry dies. Can't have that. These weapons must be used, and with eagerness, so that the stockpiles can feel the need to be replenished. Arms industry doesn't need ALL countries to play along with this game, it typically suffices with a superpower or two (guess who :v)
 
Crni Vuk said:
Don't forget the internet. Cyberwar! Could be a reality in the future.
Click to expand...
Too bad it won't be as cool as depicted in Neuromancer... Flying a microlight through Siberia to hack a russian data node from the air, stuff like that. Also, nobody's gonna name military operations "Operation Screaming Fist" anymore.
 
Hassknecht said:
Too bad it won't be as cool as depicted in Neuromancer... Flying a microlight through Siberia to hack a russian data node from the air, stuff like that. Also, nobody's gonna name military operations "Operation Screaming Fist" anymore.
Click to expand...
Or Operation Creampie because everyone's gonna laugh.
 
Fun fact, some years ago a lot of documents were declassified in Norway, regarding nuclear research

There were mentions of uranium mining, entire villages cancerized, and such stuff - but the most exciting was a plan, ambition, call it what you want - of contributing to a unmanned aircraft that would be nuclear powered, and loaded with many, many warheads. This plane would ideally fly over the USSR, and carpet-bomb nukes, for then to crash-land itself right in the heart of Moscow

There was even a mention of the impossibility of testing such a weapon, since it would require nuking a continent
 
zegh8578 said:
Fun fact, some years ago a lot of documents were declassified in Norway, regarding nuclear research

There were mentions of uranium mining, entire villages cancerized, and such stuff - but the most exciting was a plan, ambition, call it what you want - of contributing to a unmanned aircraft that would be nuclear powered, and loaded with many, many warheads. This plane would ideally fly over the USSR, and carpet-bomb nukes, for then to crash-land itself right in the heart of Moscow

There was even a mention of the impossibility of testing such a weapon, since it would require nuking a continent
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, that sounds like Project Pluto, a nuclear ramjet powered cruise missile that would fly at Mach 3 in low altitude spewing nuclear waste along the way (and wreaking destruction via the supersonic shockwave, too) and delivering nuclear bombs to Russia. After delivering the bombs it would just cruise and irradiate and destroy the landscape until it was shot down or crashed otherwise.
The weapon was scrapped, of course, because the risk of Russia building a similar weapon was too big.
The nuclear ramjet was built and tested, though, and apparently gave some nice insights in material science.
That motherfucker was the ultimate doomsday weapon, really.

Heh, imagine a post-apocalyptic Russia that has such a thing flying over it years after the actual war :D
 
Sometimes I seriously ask my self how this species made it trough the cold war, without killing it self at least once ...
 
Crni Vuk said:
Sometimes I seriously ask my self how this species made it trough the cold war, without killing it self at least once ...
Click to expand...
I ask the same thing too. But it's likely by 2100 the only thing that will likely push us to the brink of extinction is climate change and disease. No better way to lead to a downfall then to cause mass fear and hysteria among a population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top