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.
Kayden Martinez
nukes don't exist. look it up
Leo Wood
the final red pill
Nolan Adams
tl;dr
Should have wrote an article about giving away your country to niggers, it's what you are good at.
Jack Morales
Please discuss this in this thread: For me its too retarded to argue if nukes exist, this is a thread for adults. Sup Forums is 18+ btw.
Robert Murphy
Does that mean you believe that there was no Hiroshima/Nagasake bombings?
Jace Clark
Why do they pay so much for non radiated metal from pre-nuke testing ship wrecks then?
Kevin Martinez
>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.
So you mean what was just done to Assad, for the second time? No proof that he actually did it outside of, "trust us". Because that didn't stop Trump from doing what he did.
