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.
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.
So my answer: Don't be afraid, it won't happen. Noone would profit.
Caleb Perry
>First we have to ask ourselves who would profit from an all out nuclear war. the one who wins it.
>reduce population >has too many variables, since you can't be sure who nukes where no, you exactly know where to hit in that case >you can't plan the outcome good enough to be able to stabilize a new society afterwards. if the goal is reduction of population, you dont have to worry about that. people would organise themselves btw.
bump btw
Asher Reyes
bump
Gavin Bennett
>why nuclear war won't happen >what is hiroshima and nagasaki
Andrew Fisher
that was not a nuclear war, that was an extended show of force and testing the nukes for the first time to show everyone what they are capable off.
it just makes no sense if elites would suffer from the consequences, too. why would they give up their fancy lifestyle?
Daniel Lopez
you should understand that nukes nowdays dont cause so much of contamination as like in 60's for example.
Brayden Gutierrez
but wouldn't the fallout from an all out nuclear still be enough to fuck with nature in the grand scale?
I mean people worry about Fukushima even if it is really small scale.
Also a nuclear war would rip said elites of their safe power positions. I don't see what is to gain for them.
Lucas Hill
Mutually Assured Destruction. It's what kept the Cold War cold for so long.
Alexander Gomez
US and Chinese navies clash in the South China Sea. They bluff a bit, they have some close calls, a pilot loses it and fires. The US fleet wipes out the Chinese fleet and bases. The Chinese think they can get away with a tactical nuclear strike against the carrier group, claiming to the international court of opinion that they only nuked ships, not civilians. US nukes 1 port in retaliation, they can't let them get away with it. Soon it goes from tit-for-tat to full blown exchange. Unplanned, not wanted, but neither side thinks they can back down.
Nathaniel Jackson
>Who would profit from an all out nuclear war?
Christopher Brown
Israel would 100% be one of the places wiped out completely.
Ryan Williams
>to fuck with nature in the grand scale? depends on the part where the nuke hits. whole world wouldnt be completly contaminated, though demage would be done. >Fukushima a reactor which culd melt and explode, throwing radioactive dust and a lot of differnt particles in the athmosphere is different from just an atomic bomb. >rip said elites of their safe power positions No it wouldnt, if you really believe that elites rule the world and doing everything for the situation to escalate. im sorry to tell you, but nuc. war is possible.
Caleb Perez
nukes don't exist. The nukes you see tested are cgi.international fear campaign
Jaxon Bailey
then how: a) did they nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? b) how did they faike nuke footage in the 50s?
Jordan Campbell
>citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki There's a reason war on an international scale of total nature hasn't occurred since then. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction.
Asher Fisher
BF3 polt: >Terrorist acquire Russian suitcase nuke >Get chased down by Russian spetsnaz while trying to nuke paris >Paris gets nuked with dead spetsnaz left there >US gets suspicous of Russia >Terrorist nuke NY starting ww3
Seems pretty realistic to me.
Nathaniel Fisher
>nuclear footage >Hiroshima and Nagasaki Hiroshima and Nagasaki were blatant Japanese propaganda effects in an effort to portray Americans as Imperialists seeking to oppress and exploit Japan.
>nuclear footage You know what other footage we have? 9/11 bombings and the Moon landings. No one seriously thinks Jet fuel melts steel beams right right?
Luis Lopez
Nobody else had deployable nukes then.
Noah Johnson
Did they pay off everyone in Hiroshima? Or did they nuke their own people 9/11 style.
>The only conspiracy Sup Forums isnt 100% behind >The moon landing Yeah real convincing fake videos ya got that emu in disguise
Joshua Williams
Of all things to start nuclear war over, why would it be leaving the EU? What a retarded shoop.
Ethan Miller
You will be proven wrong in the next century.
Austin Barnes
Um, something that happened over 75 years ago?
Parker Ross
you sure not in this one?
Jaxon Morgan
Imagine being a madman pretending to be the best guy ever, working hard as a politician for decades. At 50 become president. Immediately after getting sworn in order the triad to empty everything at Russia. I wonder weather th military would actually do it or pussy out?
Aaron Baker
Then who's gonna repopulate the kikes?
Jack Lee
>Flag What did you mean by this?
Parker Sanchez
nuclear war wont happen because we're all ayylmao lab rats. they less of a fuck about the planet, than they do about losing their experiment stock.
we're livestock. would you let your cows gore each other to death?
Andrew Ortiz
They firebombed their own cities and blamed the Americans for it. It was a clear attempt to demonise the Americans in anticipation of a ground invasion of Japan.
:^)
Michael Davis
It does not work that way. There is multiple people involved in activating nukes and each of the can veto the attack / not hand out their codes.
Wyatt Harris
>would you let your cows gore each other to death? That would be pretty cool.
Ryder Hernandez
What about a group of madmen?
Jose Cruz
Its the reason you dont mix different breeds of cow into the same paddock, nothing good comes of it. Also I believe in free grazing, the more competitive grazer wins, equal grazing kills!
Gavin Torres
i just wanted to know why you would be so sure that it wouldnt happen in this century. >There is multiple people involved in activating nukes and each of the can veto the attack *WRONG* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)
Liam Allen
The chance of a whole group consisting of high ranked military and politicians the are in the right positions at the same time to conspire is close to zero. The system is designed like that with exactly the intention of this never happening.
Charles Lewis
Seen it happen once it was pretty fucking metal, but in saying that it was $3000 down the drain.
Matthew Murphy
>implying people like trump are rationnal and not absolute autistic scumbag >implying this particular analysis isn't 70 years old and worthless
Ryan Taylor
>Let's do this the rational way. kek
Nathan Ross
>it can automatically trigger the launch of the Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) by sending a pre-entered highest-authority order from the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Strategic Missile Force Management to command posts and individual silos if a nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity, and overpressure sensors even with the commanding elements fully destroyed
>if a nuclear strike is detected
somebody else has to shoot first
Wyatt White
doesn't have to be intentional. accidents can happen. remember that soviet guy on the malfunctioning radar who picked up what looked to be icbms heading for russia and didn't report it to his superior officer? if he did report it we probably would all be fucked right now
Gavin Martinez
>group consisting of high ranked military and politicians >close to zero Have you ever heard the name Kennedy? >somebody else has to shoot first or make it look like it for a computer.
Matthew Thomas
>$3000 Worth it. Also you can turn it into gambling and take bets.
Henry Cox
America has almost as many echobergs as Israel does.
Jonathan Jones
what if we entertain the tinfoilers and say that tptb would do it in a purposeful culling of the population? If is correct and the fallout is minimal, then nuking would be a good way to cut the consuming population, most especially in US, EU, Russia, and China.
Jose Phillips
Why not terrorist groups that capture a nuke, but they dont want to freak out the public so no large scale Bin Laden hunt occurs only spec ops, and the terrorist have a large group behind them, like isis. And they somehow manage to get it onto opposing country of the place captured nuke is from, and manage to detonate it, and other country then gets hostile to towards captured nukes country, and then ww3?
Anthony Cox
>Have you ever heard the name Kennedy? The problem with conspring to nuke is that the institutions are far more wide spread and different to achieve then e.g. "getting close to the president"
>or make it look like it for a computer. this I fully agree with. that is why I said in OP that a rogue nuke is the biggest danger of all.
just imaging if NYC suddenly blew up out of nowhere with noone to blame... wew..
Daniel Jackson
pay debts
Isaiah Hill
actually around 6000, the other cow died a couple of days after. Anyways I think dogs make for better fight gambling animals, much cheaper and more brutal.
Jayden Cruz
Read this book and watch Fog of War and you'll change your mind you stupid Krout
this is a very likely scenario to me. I actually think it will happen exactly this way.
BUT it would "only" lead to ww3, not all out nuke war.
Jeremiah Clark
I still think their will be a nuke war, just more tactical, like bombing military bases and major cities. Although once one side is losing who's to say they wont go all out and kill everyone.
Angel Kelly
>The problem with conspring to nuke is that the institutions you can however manipulate events which would lead up to a situation where the a nuclear strike might seem inevitable and governement and military would agree that there is no other option, theoretically.
i dont really think that such an event will take place, but there seem to be tendencies.
John Jackson
We... are talking about a hypothetical situation, right? As in we aren't in any imminent danger, right?
Nathan Parker
What I actually think might happen:
India vs. Pakistan or SK vs. NK. Isolated incident to make the whole world scared again.
Far more effective than all-out MAD.
Matthew Carter
not from nukes, no.
Brandon Murphy
Pretty sure North Korea and China wouldn't give a shit about the consequences of of nuclear war if they were provoked.
Isaiah Green
>First we have to ask ourselves who would profit from an all out nuclear war
People control the petrol dollar system when it has been challenged in a way it could potentially collapse.
>it just makes no sense if elites would suffer from the consequences, too. why would they give up their fancy lifestyle?
0.1% Americans and Petrol dollar jews would suffer more from petrol dollar system collapsing than nuclear war.
Cameron Ross
I see your point about the financial collapse, but would a "conventional" ww3 not be far more efficient in establishing the next rigged system than nuking the shit out of everything and everyone?
Thomas Kelly
this
Levi Turner
---->
Jaxon Morgan
>Let's do this the rational way.
Well, there is where you fucked up, you see, Donald Trump is leader of Team America World Police so there will be no rationality in the world either.
Jason Sullivan
>Let's do this the rational way. >Thinks that people are rational >Thinks that muzzies gaining control over Europe's nukes is nothing to worry about
Isaac Sanders
even muzzies want to CLAIM land instead of fucking it up beyond repair
Elijah Mitchell
contrary to poular belief, modern thermonuclear weapons have very high % of fusion versus fission, so their fallout is low and it lasts only a couple of weeks anyway. Nukes don't fuck up land beyond repair.
Luis Rivera
do you have any source on that? the implications would be horrible.
Dominic Cox
check nuclearweaponarchive.org/ The last US atmospheric tests cleary showed a tendency towards high yield from fusion and eliminating the need for 3rd stage uranium tempers which were causing most of the fallout. Fallout was never really desirable but technology to ignite kiloton-range fusion secondaries with low yield fission primaries was hard to acquire. AFAIk the most efficient weapon ever detonated was the Tzar bomba with more than 90% of its 50MT yield in fusion, that was achieved by replacing the uranium temper with ordinary lead.
Basically no modern nuke is fission only or boosted fission, almost all of them are true thermonuclear devices
Wyatt Anderson
well... shit. this would basically mean that nuking population centers would be viable since the rebuild would start a new economic boom / wonder years?
Dylan Miller
I would agree. I think the only thing preventing that is the reservedness of the western mindset and mutual assured destruction. But the weapons themselves are designed to keep land useable after the strike.
Noah Anderson
well.. fugg. this kind of kills my whole argument.
Noah Barnes
>he fell for the nuclear winter jew
das rite goy, keep on playing fallout 3 instead of trying to stop the rape of your country by a bunch of arabs
Christopher Gray
>2017 >fallout3
why do you hate the new game? :'(
Benjamin Powell
everything after 2 is shit
Blake Cooper
You're missing out if you haven't played New Vegas. Shit was p dope.
John Turner
I concur.
Connor Hughes
If the world fight's back against (((their))) grip, be assured they would rather nuke the planet than lose.
Daniel Green
America has the most poisonous one too, along with UK and some others. Turni
Ryder Taylor
You're sadly mistaken.
A World War 3 would make a lot of sense the moment when one side has a technology advantage. If our world is to survive for the next 100 or 1000 years, we cannot have two or even three sides who could just with one button erase life on earth. The moment a crazy person (think Kim Jong Un) can get such powers, the whole world should shiver. Maybe not with todays technology, but with technology we very possible will have in the future.
So back to my point, the best opportunity for a strike when one side has a clear technology advantage. I think we're close to that moment in history right now. With missile defense shields and cyber-warfare, we can shoot down missiles over russia or destroy any ICBM launch facilities. The hard part would be to shoot down missiles from russian submarines, as they would come from unknown locations.
Very soon, if we aren't already there, it will be entirely possible to wipe out russian nuclear capabilities, and all bombing we'll have to do would be focused on the russian warships and tanks.
The diplomatic solution is most likely a side-show. Domestic disputes and internal turmoil are probably the best way for a regime change, but when the state who has previously orchestrated regime changes suffers from one itself, it just wouldn't work.
Probably nothing will happen, but who knows...i just think it would make sense if you're a crazy enough to do it.
