Will There Ever be A Nuclear War?

Do you ever think that an event will occur that is likely to start a nuclear exchange? I mean the mass-destruction nukes.

Reason I ask was that it didn't seem likely. Everyone talks about other leaders being madmen, but that's just cartoon-propaganda given to people who like tuning in on the latest from Dr. Evil characters. I can't speak for their every characteristic, but I'm certain that all of them possess self-interest.

First, the only person who could actually start a Nuclear exchange without eexpress suicidal tendencies is one of the Powers of the world. To explain, a bunch of terrorists merely crashed plains into three buildings in the United States. Live's were lost, but on the whole scale, the attack hurt the US about as much as the beat of a fly's wing. In reciprocation, the US steam-rolled through Iraq, and then proceeded to steam-roll through various other countries around the region. It's pretty clear to any looking that if you attack the US, you will only provide the avenue towards invasion. And even if you send a terrorist group, or even if it was a terrorist group with no ties to any government, there's still a good chance your country will be invaded anyway. So no weaker power is going to ever try to target the US because it would mean take-over, if not total destruction. They may even be trying as much as possible to clear their name of any suspicions remotely linked to them.

Super-powers, however, have at least some pretext for starting such a thing. It is possible that they would have weighed the options and considerd that while the US would surely be able to hit some areas in their country, they might be able to destroy enough of the US's forces before all was destroyed. This is a far-flung hope, considering nukes can be fired almost immediately from way beyond the front lines at will. There is no anti-nuke system that I am aware of, so it would be basically lobing nuclear shells at one another.

Because of this scenario, I find it highly unlikely that, even when provoked, anyone will answer or act out a nuclear attack of mass magnitude. There's just no win unless the nuclear attacks are eahnged between coutries of litle consequence through which the acutal powers of the world act through. In that sense, only those countries will be the battle ground and the nuclear threat wouldn't reach the actual powers themselves...maybe.

Anyoone think differently?

 

The problem is that one, and soon two, nuclear powers have actually displayed suicidal tendencies, in the form of an obsession with 'martyrdom'.

 

What powers have expressed this?

 

World War II was a nuclear war

I think that eventually we'll try to get rid of the state - one of them will throw a nuke off and the rest will fall like dominoes.

 

It would be utter madness. I can't see logical minds doing something like that.

 

India, Pakistan, Israel, China, and probably North Korea all have nukes. It's not that outrageous to suppose that if their power was threatened they'd retaliate unwisely.

 

Yeah it is. Because no one needs to retaliate with nukes. If someone seriously threatens a state, I'm sure they will go to war. BUT, there's a good reason why there has not been a war between the Nuclear Power's since the advent of nuclear technology, post-WW2. It's because they know very well that a war between them will inevitably draw in nukes. That's the whole purpose of having them. If there's no technology available to defend from nuclear attack, than mutual destruction is garaunteed. It's a lose-lose situation, and so you will likely never see a nuke aimed at a super-power.

But, there is a chance that the Super-powers may instigate a nuclear war through puppet nations. A war that does not affect them directly, but nuclear war all the same. It still is a low-chance scenario because nuking anything is wasting it. Irrideemable territory. What would be the point?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

People are not always rational.

 

Indeed. But, that only means that Israel joins the untouchable league. Meaning, no one will attack out of fear of reprecussions. That's why Iraq and Iran want nukes. You think the US would have attacked Iran if they were capable of launching nukes over the ocean? Iran knwos this and it seeks that assurity. I'm sure other states do as well, but they, perhaps, have no real way of achieving that ambition like Iran or Iraq would have.

Besides...any fool knows that attacking Israel is like attacking the US. No one would even think of it unless, for some reason, Israel fell out of favor of the US. Even then, the presence of nukes and the "kamikaze" threat would assure no sund person attacks them.

 

The insanity that was the Cold War with the U.S. and Russia having about 150,000 total Nuclear Warheads is something I hope will never happen again because there was about 4 events during the Cold War that Nuclear War could have started and in particular in the 80's when the Soviets were convinced a U.S./NATO exercise was actually the beginning of a U.S./NATO First Strike.

We came within MINUTES of a Nuclear War and I am very happy we have lowered the numbers of Nukes to a great extent.

AboveAlpha

 

And that is actually a pretty sound plan.

If a military invasion did manage to topple the Israeli Government, how long do you think most of the Jews in the region would survive? I myself think that would follow would be a bloodbath of first Jews, then "Jew Supporters", then just about anybody else. A slaughter that would make Pol Pot look like a gentleman.

No, when your opponents go around screaming not "Death to INSERT LEADER NAME" but instead "Death to CITIZENS OF THIS NATION", then you have a real reason to worry that your side could never surrender. Ever. And if that is what you are up against, the only defense would be to be one of those poisonous insects. Yea, they may bit the worm, but that does not do much good when the worm then kills the attacker.

I myself find the Sampson Option to be very rational.

 

OK, now can I stop laughing now?

They have been seriously invaded on 2 occasions since they became a nuclear power. The Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War both had invasions against a nuclear Israel. And all of the other attacks since then.

Oh, if only what you said was true. Sadly however, it is not. In general, all nations know that Israel will not use their nukes, so they are free to attack conventionally. Much like they will attack the US, or Russia, or Brittan. Yes, all know that those are nuclear powers. But they also know that they will not use their nukes first, so are safe to attack.

 

All ready has been...

... dat's what put a stop to WWII.

 

[video=youtube;wcW_Ygs6hm0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcW_Ygs6hm0[/video]

 

Amen brother!

 

I certainly hope not. I am not prepared for a nuclear holocaust........only a zombie apocalypse.

 

Yeah I've kind of built my prepping on assuming zombies.


But I think over the next few decades virtually any state or well funded organization who wants nukes will be able to get them. That includes a lot of crazies so I'm not sure how some sort of nuclear exchange can be avoided.

 

South Africa use to have nukes. When South Africa realized that they were going to lose one of the battles of the Cold War and that the communist, "African National Council" (ANC) were about to gain control of the government with help from pro communist liberals in America, they disposed of their nukes. Nothing more dangerous than uneducated racist socialist having nukes.

>"The international fear of nuclear proliferation made South Africa the focus of intense concern during the 1980s. Cape Town academic Renfrew Christie was jailed for passing details of South Africa's nuclear power program to the African National Congress (ANC) in 1980.

In 1987, President Botha announced that South Africa was considering signing the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and would begin discussions with other countries toward that end. In September 1990, Pretoria agreed to sign the NPT, but only "in the context of an equal commitment by other states in the Southern African region." After intensive diplomatic efforts, especially by the United States and the Soviet Union, Tanzania and Zambia agreed to sign the treaty. South Africa signed the NPT on July 10, 1991. In addition, the government banned any further development, manufacture, marketing, import, or export of nuclear weapons or explosives, as required by the NPT.

Following South Africa's accession to the NPT, a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement was signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on September 16, 1991. Safeguards Agreements assist Member States to show that they are complying with international obligations in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Implementation under South Africa's NPT-related Safeguards Agreement with the Agency began in November 1991. The extensive nature of South Africa's nuclear fuel cycle required not only considerable inspection resources, but also extensive co-operation on the part of the State authorities in providing access to defunct facilities and to historical accounting and operating records.
In March 1993, President de Klerk declared that South Africa had previously developed a limited nuclear capability, which had been dismantled and destroyed before South Africa acceded to the NPT."< -> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/


South Africa's nuclear bombs before they were destroyed so they couldn't fall in the hands of black African socialist.

 

That was then. What about now, with the US backing them?

They were also not as armed as they are now. The nukes...who knows whether they were even deployable, or even fit to actually counter an invasion at the time. But now...they even have nuclear submairnes. A totally different story.

 

the losers may as a last resort use nukes..

 

Agreed, which is why I think, while we'll probably see a city destroyed by a nuke in our lifetimes, probably the next decade or two, it's more likely to be either terrorists (most likely) or a rogue nation (less likely).

 

I don't think - at least I hope - that an exchange of nuclear weapons between nations that have them doesn't happen. Okay that's pretty obvious. During the Cold War the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction kept both the US and the Soviet Union from starting a nuclear war with each other. Now say what you like about the leaders and governments of both nations since the end of the Second World War but they were smart enough not to start flinging nuclear ICBMs at one another. It was a close a few times though. Cuba in 1962 and 1983 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saved_the_World

The danger lies in a nutter nation, most likely a theocracy with leaders who believe in God and an afterlife, who may decide that nuking someone else is good policy. Hopefully if that happened other powers with rational leaders would realise what had happened and we would not be subjected to a nuclear holocaust.

 

Well, in the heat of the moment, logic doesn't always win out against the more primal urges.

Look at how many people get pregnant by accident.

 

Sorry, logical failure, known as "Leading The Question".

Israel had nukes then, they were almost overrun, they did not use them.

It is now 4 years later, what makes you (or anybody) think they are more likely to use them now?

Sorry, and that "they are not as armed then as they are now" is in no way any kind of reasonable qualifier. Do you think logically if they had 2 or 10 or 1,000 that it would have made any difference on their decision to use a nuclear weapon?

Sorry, but this fails logically on every front possible. And yes, we do know what they were capable of using. We even have their own military admitting that they had loaded the weapons onto aircraft ready for launch in the event that they were about to loose the war. Tom Clancy even wrote about it for goodness sakes.

This is apparently only a "big secret" to the ostrich community that wants to pretend that this kind of situation never happens.

 

Sheesh, god save me from Anti-Semites!

FYI, Israel got it's nuclear capability from France, not the US. So before you even try to throw this kind of coprolite at me, you had better in the future do your own freaking research, and not come at me with some anti-Semitic crap!

And no, as far as I am aware, Israel has absolutely no (that is zero, none, nein, zilch) "Nuclear Submarines" at this time.

Sheesh, am I trying to debate with children here, that are incapable of doing any kind of research at all?

And pray tell, who is going to "invade" Israel where submarines are going to matter in the first place? Iran? Egypt? Germany?

Please, please, please, do not just throw at me nonsense talking points that you learned at STORMFRONT. I am a military professional. Talking nonsense only earns my scorn and ridicule.