WHY A NUCLEAR WAR WON'T HAPPEN

Let's do this the rational way.

First we have to ask ourselves who would profit from an all out nuclear war. The answer to that question is noone. You might think the elites might use it to rid the earth of their enemies and reduce population, but even for them this way of doing it a) causes to many side effects and influence on nature and b) has too many variables, since you can't be sure who nukes where and you can't plan the outcome good enough to be able to stabilize a new society afterwards.

I mean look at the war zones we have today, war isn't what it used to be and the war in those countries is neverending. In a land where the infrastructure is destroyed, economics don't exist anymore and people lost all good belief there will be only chaos. This chaos would last for at least some decades and again the outcome would be very unstable and hard to plan for.

Second we have to ask ourselves why everyone keeps their bombs then. This one is simple and you heard it before: So no madman can push the button without killing himself. And there is a second answer: You can use nuclear weapons on a smaller scale for tactical combat. Small rounds with nuclear parts that wreck a lot of devastation will come, will be in use and will not influence nature too much. You can predict the outcome. This is very dangerous and unsettling, but won't lead to an all out nuclear war.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

And there there is someting else people don't think about enough: Having an all out nuclear war only occurs when it is clear who shot first. All scenarios are like "A attacks B who is partners with C, they shoot back but A is partners with D and will retaliate." and so on. Have you ever thought about that the "new" nuclear danger is not countries nuking it each other, but CovertOps looking like terrorist action? If you are Putin you could easily set up a CovertOps of Pseudo-Terrorists getting a quite small bomb into NY for example. You could blow up the city, and the US could not react.

In this scenario you would be able to influence politics on a large scale. Just imagine a US where NY got nuked but noone knows where it came from. They only thing the US could do without being the madman who pushes random nuke button they would have to do the same as with 911: Attack countries they wanted to attack anyways with regular warfare. They would HAVE to do that since the public wouldn't be able to deal with the fact that you have no clue what to do. But again: This won't cause an all out nuclear war. It could lead to WW3, and possibly would shake every society on earth, but it won't end in nuclear holocaust.

So given all this, is nuclear holocaust even possible? Yes it is. But only if someone with much power and no regard for himself and the outcome is able to push the button without other people verifying it. Right now I'm not aware of a country that a) HAS nukes b) is that radical and c) has a president with so much power that he can push the button alone, without his staff killing him before he can.

Don't be afraid, it won't happen. Noone would profit.

bump

Not even going to bother reading what is probably 6 paragraphs of you attempting to explain MAD which is a pointless thing but you probably arent considering that it only takes one psycho in power or two leaders who wont back down and dont care about Who will benifit because backing down would mean MAD is nullified anyway. Not to mention advances in missile defence tech will inevitably lead to a nuclear-conventional hybrid ww3

Religion fucktard. And nihilists.

wrong

soon

There will be a nuclear war
My digits have already confirmed it

Where exactly did you get that from? I am neither.

>So given all this, is nuclear holocaust even possible? Yes it is. But only if someone with much power and no regard for himself and the outcome is able to push the button without other people verifying it. Right now I'm not aware of a country that a) HAS nukes b) is that radical and c) has a president with so much power that he can push the button alone, without his staff killing him before he can.

It won't happen because their are greater powers with an agenda, which in return is enslavement of the people.

You are already dead

Nobody knows wtf an EMP is? With the military abilities and technology they can track bombs and destroy them in the atmosphere. It would literally take a group deployed nuke to actually do some damage in the hands of the next stalin

Nukes are a hoax

Nukes are obsolete anyway.

You sincerely underestimate Pakistan

Somebody always profits

why do you think they would sacrifice themselves?

>leaf

>First we have to ask ourselves who would profit from an all out nuclear war.

Those who strike first remove the possiblity of their own destruction.

This is why we have the "dead hand" system.

>First we have to ask ourselves who would profit from an all out nuclear war.

Some people just want to watch the World burn...

this.

>Those who strike first remove the possiblity of their own destruction.
Really? a) is this even possible? b) even if they would suffer heavily in politics, national and international c) they would suffer from the global financial backlash

simple question: how the fuck did they bomb hiroshima then?

Special FX weren't that good in the 1940s...

youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84

You keep talking like it's humans who will make the decision.

>Really? a) is this even possible? b) even if they would suffer heavily in politics, national and international c) they would suffer from the global financial backlash

After a strategic nuclear strike politics and economics are not even considerations.

All states would declare national emegencies and adopt "war economies" (command economies) to secure food production and basic infrastructure. The first objectives would be co-operation, preservation and survival.

and you think anyone would cooperate with the country that threw the nuke first?

>and you think anyone would cooperate with the country that threw the nuke first?

If the "country that threw the nuke first" was allied to you, then: yes.

I guess that would become quite complicated.
Either half the world is dead and there is nuclear winter and massive fallout, OR there are countries left that would nuke those who did it first leading to an endless cycle.
I don't see the end of it.

Only the US, Russia and China have the nuclear capability to knock out an entire continent.

France could wipe out major cities. The UK doesn't have an independent nuclear system, it's dependent on the US. Other nations only have tactical capability.

If a first strike was successful and the victim's dead hand system failed, then I imagine all sides would sue for peace.

You don't have to knock out the entire continent, just the population centers and military bases.

But to your scenario: So what you are saying is if e.g. the US would wipe out China with a preemptive strike that Russia - and the other smaller nuclear powers - would just chill and cooperate with the US?

after people saw what the "new weapons" could do in the First World War, they swore off war, the idea of another major war was unfathomable -- only 20 years later Second World War followed

>League of Nations was created to ensure communication, cooperation and prevention of any large war breaking out between great powers of the world ever again
We have the UN, International Criminal Court, NATO, etc. WW3 is literally impossible because the world would not allow it

>public radio broadcasting began and was seen as a way for the entire world to finally be connected, respectable politicians and social scientists claimed was going to prevent any future war
the internet, social media and our global interconnectedness will ensure no world war will ever happen

>artillery bombardment, machine gun nests and chlorine gas, forcing armies into endless pointless wars of attrition and death, were seen as such devastating weapons, altering what war meant so much and causing such tremendous losses of human life on all sides, that no war would ever happen again because the losses would be too great for anyone to make war worth the price, even if they won
the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction ensures that no matter how bad things would become, no nation would ever use nuclear weapons in war, as the retaliatory strike would lead to unimaginable losses on one's own side and any victory gained would be overshadowed by the destruction incurred

you're right, MAD will work forever, nobody will ever figure out a way (or think they figured out a way) around the "assured" part, no technology will ever develop to break that balance, I bet nobody is even working on it ...just like Germans in WW2 didn't figure out a way around being bogged down in First Word War's trench warfare meat grinder

I get what you mean and fully agree. The US is working heavily on placing defense system everywhere for example.
That is why China and Russia are getting nervous.
At the same time Russia is developing tsunami torpedos.

Yes, it is an arms race. But one where MAD is STILL assured, since BOTH parties still have stuff the others don't know about.

Like I said: You would have to have the tech AND be a mad man. And that does not apply to anyone right now at last.

If there was a strategic nuclear strike it would be between two sides: Russia/China and the West.

Once one side it eliminated, that's it: game over.

Why would a world leader launch nukes if he knows there will be a retaliation strike. Leaving them with no power governing over a pile of ash?

fair enough, at the moment you logic holds
the two caveats being that increasingly dense fog of war and "possible weapons" increase the overall paranoia and instability, and more importantly you don't always need a madman to break MAD: a capable third party, interested in mutually assured destruction of two other major players could create a false flag cleverly done and manipulated just so, that it would force a rational player's hand into a per-emptive strike against an enemy he believes completely committed to striking first / otherwise force a player into a no way out political and military situation.
an economic/social collapse could put an otherwise rational actor up against the wall where the choice is between its end as a player or rolling the dice with an all-in bet on WW3. >TL;DR: while you are right for the moment, there could be a few scenarios where you don't need a madman, just a cleverly manipulated or desperate enough man

>leaf'd up my TL;DR

If a nuclear happening at this scale would occur the world would be left in a nuclear winter and the fallout would kill all crops. Again: Noone profits.

THIS is indeed the only option I see and a real danger, as mentioned in OP.
Smuggling a nuke somewhere, setting it off when nobody knows for sure where it came from is REALLY dangerous.

It would be less "Who would profit", and more "Who has so little to lose at that point that they don't care about using nukes."
North Korea I feel is the latter, and they know that they're fucked, so they're going to take out as many as they can.

I would fully agree but I don't believe Kim will ever have a nuke that does anything but drop on their own heads.

Well, yeah. The best that North Korea could hope for is to hit South Korea. But that could still cause problems politically i.e. How the fuck could a nutter like him get and use a nuke? Should we invade all small countries that have nukes just to take them off of their hands?

If we invade NK I can even imagine Kim nuking himself so nobody can use their "holy land".

>why a nuclear war won't happen
It's because the EU aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons

>EU not allowed to have nukes
>france has a whole lot
ooooook.....

kek
I guess you do have a point there.

>France isn't the EU.
>Germany is the EU.
>Germany doesn't have nukes.
>Germany wants nukes
>France can't sell Germany nukes due to nuclear arms treaties because NATO
Germany has fucked up Europe three times in 100 years but so far the 3rd fuckup is only gentle in so far as it's the mass importation of rapists and islamists that are destroying the identity of European nations. If they (Germany) get nuclear weapons someone over there will fuck it all up bigly.

Someone needs to watch The Greatest Story Never Told.
Stop believing the "germans are guilty" narrative.

>Not to mention advances in missile defence tech will inevitably lead to a nuclear-conventional hybrid ww3

An important note, yes.
Several "think tanks" in the US already think that the USA can start using nukes now because M.A.D is less of a thing thanks to advances in missile defense, it's...well, it's madness.

But there are people who believe it and are willing to bet your life on it.

another solid reason why it will never happen is that Nuclear Weapons don't exist

i thought this board was redpilled

again my two favorite questions regarding this:
How did you nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki then?
How did they fake nuke test videos in the 50s?

You are guilty.
You are guilty because exactly the same reason the vast majority of the world believes the exact opposite of that video you linked me (watched it long ago already). It doesn't matter what we, the tiny red pilled minority, have come to understand but rather the greater majority of blue pilled fags.
The greater majority of Germany has accepted the blue pill, has taken regular doses of it ever since the fall of Hitler, and are likely to never stop taking the blue pill barring some massive shift in the German mindset and propaganda.
Germany has accepted its guilt via decades of forced propaganda. You are guilty because you've been forever identified with (((atrocities)))) that, real or not, the German population has come to live with.

I'm sorry, Hans.
I wish I could take that away from you.
I really do.

Whoever thought we'd go to war, after all the things we saw; it's April fools day. Tomorrow never comes until it's too late

Cause nukes don't exist

>Should we invade all small countries that have nukes just to take them off of their hands?

Yes. I heard Sweden has some btw.

...

------------------->