What's the chance of a nuclear war in the next 50 years? How would it happen if so?

What's the chance of a nuclear war in the next 50 years? How would it happen if so?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek
youtu.be/eiM-RzPHyGs?t=3m45s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Sweden
>Suicide
Checkem

>What's the chance of a nuclear war in the next 50 years?
Second to none.
>How would it happen if so?
Israel v Iran.

Mutual assured destruction is pretty real so I'd say the odds aren't good for the ultimate happening.

0 because nukes do not exist.

India - Pakistan _ 2018.

Probably pretty good, if I'm being quite honest with you.

The problem is (and it's the same problem people against Nuclear Power have) is that people, when they think of nuclear weapons, have the ingrained image in their head of a massive megaton blast that can level entire cities. Don't get me wrong, it's not their fault. It's a powerful image and, quite frankly, nuclear weapons can.

But not all nuclear weapons are massive 57 Megaton Tsar Bomba sized weapons. They can be made on a much, much smaller scale. These were designed for a more tactical use and had relatively low yield.

For example, the "Davy Crockett" was designed all the way back in 1957 and could fit inside a backpack. Obviously, this is also what makes them extremely dangerous. A "Davy Crockett" style bomb has a yield of about 2 to 4 times the size of the Oklahoma City bombing.

While I'm certainly not trying to downplay the danger, I'm just trying to explain that a "nuclear bomb" is still a nuclear bomb even if it only takes out a couple of buildings rather than an entire city.

I know OP was probably referring to a city-sized destruction bomb, I'm just trying to help explain why we're so adamant about not letting certain countries and individuals get their hands on this type of technology.

0

>Checks timeline
>2049

Highly likely. The post atomic horror lasts 25 years. At least we discover warp drive then. Keep in mind that Roddenberry was a visionary unlike any other. The dude knew what the fuck was going to go down.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek

I didn't know any of that about smaller bombs. That's very interesting, I'm gonna go read up about that. Thanks!

I'm talking another 10+ megaton detonation in anger, and whilst it's true that most modern nuclear missiles are much lower yields than what nukes are capable of a 10 megaton explosion in any major city would be devastating

Hopefully high.

A "decisive weapon" was used back in 1945. There will be a different one within 50 years that will make Hiroshima look like a dirty bomb.

It IS really interesting the level of misinformation regarding what exactly happened in the Nuclear Age and the discovery. Honestly, it's not necessarily anyone in particular's fault. The atomic bomb was such a powerful moment in history, and the image itself was so powerful, that humanity hasn't really recovered yet.

We will. Eventually. It's just going to take some time.

Like, what if I said to you, that we KNOW it's possible to power your home for 10,000 years using just tiny amounts of nuclear waste? Pretty amazing, huh?

Well they're working on that. Literally right now. The trick isn't in knowing we can do it. We've already discovered how to "spark" the reactor, so to speak, and how the reactor works, and how to create and consume energy out of it. What they're trying now is to figure out how to contain this in a safe and secure "product" (for lack of a better word), almost like if you think about your water heater, in the individual home. They're literally working on mini nuclear reactors for inside your house right now. As we speak.

The trick, over the next however many decades, is going to be getting the average person to understand the benefits of this incredible, amazing, world-changing technology we discovered over 70 years ago in, arguably, humanity's darkest hour.

In a way, it's poetic. And it's the stuff of the great epics of history.

We just probably won't live to see it written.

The largest theoretical yield I've heard of is 100 ish megatons but it's more about a lot of accurate smaller yield nu clear missiles nowadays than one big bomb

Imagine an ICBM of some sort that's Mach 25+ and only detectable when it's 15 seconds or less closer to its target. With those specs you mentioned. Pretty decisive to me

coming up with some effective anti-ballistic stuff these days. We might escape without a nuclear war.

It's more likely in the next 2 years. I'd bet all my wealth, that it's closer to 2 than 50.

Very high and very soon.
Checkem.

DARPA has been messing with those mach speeds for some time now.

Nukes are impractical. Resources are finite and locking down an entire region for 100 years behind radiation is a bad idea.

Trade wars and tensions in the South China sea with China escalate and get out of control.

Airbursts dont create that problem

hm this. imo, big boys nukes will only be used in an extreme scenario (ie nato marching on the kremlin or vice-versa...).
Future wars will be fought for land and resources, and making the world an inhabitable place for a couple of centuries just seems impractical
Even a tiny amount of nukes (less than a hundred or so, a tiny fraction of what we have today) would cause the world to fall into nuclear winter.

only chance to see nukes in action is but in my opinion using a nuke (however small) is quite risky, as it would probably cause an escalation of force.

Also, to expand the topic a little bit, nukes are a strategic weapon, thus "used" everyday.
The only point of having nukes in the first place is for super powers to prevent smaller countries to gang up on them.

Think about it: what prevented a large scale war between the US and USSR? what's preventing china, russia, the eu, or whatever power block to rise up to the us, or against each other? the knowledge that if you try and bring them down, you're going down with them.

Arguably, MAD is the ultimate equalizer.

...

source?

How much power for a tacitcal nuke would be needed to flatten staten island in NY?

1984. Some of the names of changed, some of the scenarios changed slightly...Mexico being plunged into Civil war is a gimme these days.

Red Dawn. John Milius could see it.

Almost a absolute certainty that if you live almost any country on Earth you are fucked... Especially the hated ones
Goodbye USA
Goodbye UK
Goodbye Russia
Goodbye to most of you faggots in the first world.

Nobody will waste a bomb on the Philippines... This place is already fucked.

It wouldn't be tactical to flatten Staten Island.

The Yield necessary to totally destroy SI would be somewhere between 650kt and 800 kt. Even then the terrain would fuck up the blast-wave and destruction.

Much better just to drop it on SOHO.

Reminder that Nuclear winter is a lie created by Einstein and pushed by Jewish scientists (most heavily in the 70's and late 60's by Environmentalists, Carl Sagan, Eric Burgess, and others) in order to use Nuclear weapons as a war deterrent and never see WW3.

Thus we moved to a policy of MAD and Containment instead of going toe to toe with the USSR after they shattered the post world war 2 eastern europe and every treaty they signed.

Such is public opinion against the bomb that nuclear power is taboo, and any talk of nuclear weapons is synonymous with strategic usage and MAD despite the fact that we lowered yield and got rid of MAD doctrine in the 70's.

>Second to none.
what the fuck does that mean i this context?

As in, the whole thing? Flat?

That'd require the air blast radius to cover the whole island...

Probably the R-12 (SS-4)...which was what Russia had pointed at us in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But if you just wanted most of it flat and the rest getting 3rd degree burns and stuff it'd probably just be a bit more than "Ivy Mike" or about the Topol (SS-25) in Russia's arsenal.

MAD is absolute shit and was dropped in 1975 in favor of NUTS (Nuclear Utilization Target Strategy) when the government debunked nuclear winter and the soviet power gap officially.

It's hard to call it an equalizer when its founding concept was debunked so hard that even if you took every single nuclear weapon ever produced and added them into 1 stockpile to detonate them, the world would undergo a climate shift equivalent to Icelands recent volcano eruptions.

Even thinking that Nuclear winter was real, the only possible way around that would be to move into a NUTS stratagem and have a strike first policy preventing the enemy nation from using their nukes and destroying the world in any scenario.

>Reminder that Nuclear winter is a lie created by Einstein and pushed by Jewish scientists (most heavily in the 70's and late 60's by Environmentalists, Carl Sagan, Eric Burgess, and others) in order to use Nuclear weapons as a war deterrent and never see WW3.
>Thus we moved to a policy of MAD and Containment instead of going toe to toe with the USSR after they shattered the post world war 2 eastern europe and every treaty they signed.
>Such is public opinion against the bomb that nuclear power is taboo, and any talk of nuclear weapons is synonymous with strategic usage and MAD despite the fact that we lowered yield and got rid of MAD doctrine in the 70's.

Ha, you don't have to tell me.

Just watch this video of the Davy Crockett being tested 60 years ago:

youtu.be/eiM-RzPHyGs?t=3m45s

I mean, in a sense, I get why they did it. They saw it as a way to make clear to governments to never trivialize the power of the bomb. The problem is, it also had the effect of demonizing nuclear power to the extent that we still have not recovered.

Which, I hope, we one day are able to get passed.

KEK SAYS THERE WILL BE NO NUCLEAR WAR

Zero.

But we'll all mostly be dead in 9 years anyways due to Fukushima radiation leak.

Funny how humanity has lost without a shot fired.

Very slim. Nuclear's stockpiles are like 1/5 of what they used to be. If we didn't have one with the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Yom Kippur War we aren't gonna have one for awhile.

I do predict that there will be at least one small terrorist attack probably in Europe (I would figure Paris). France also has many nuclear power plants so I suspect they will be targeted in the future.

>Serbian intellectuals

Am I fucked up because I want a war to happen?
Normal life seems so fucking boring, and being a thrillseeker, i'd rather see an announcement of nuclear war, and then being drafted - even though i'd be the first person to die, I still want it? Anyone else feel the same?

>The problem is, it also had the effect of demonizing nuclear power to the extent that we still have not recovered.

I also want to add, that I find it a bit hilarious that people have such a stigma toward nuclear power and having it near their homes and yet they're totally fine with nuclear-powered submarines and having their soldiers literally packed around a reactor in a cigar shaped sardine can floating in the ocean.

But like, if you tell them that it's basically the same thing that could power entire towns they freak the fuck out.

Death is just another door. You're here for one reason. To learn.

mind posting a couple of sources? I don't a lot about this, genuinely interested.

Drumpf is going to get us all killed smdh

exactly 0 for exactly 2 reasons:
reason #1: nukes are a hoax, the science built around atoms is bullshit
reason #2: the reset will have happened within that period. Deceivers will be gone.

Not with a bang, but with a bunch of pussies.

Means he's a phonefag

It means it's 99.9% not going to happen. But there's always that 0.1% chance

>Death is just another door. You're here for one reason. To learn.

There's a reason no one comes back...

NK push one too many buttons, US retaliates, NK starts nuking then US obliterates the fuck out of NK and SK dives in and invades NK.

Nuclear war is no option.There will be never nuclear war between humans.
Nukes are saved for ayylmaos.

About Tree Fiddy

Yeah, the pussies will be the Rothschilds and friends hiding out in Antarctica while the rest of the world dies off.