What is the actual likelihood of a global thermonuclear war in 2017?
No bullshit, no wishful thinking, no LARPers, just give an honest threat assessment based on CURRENT facts without huge leaps to conclusions with none of the meat of a real explanation, no radical extrapolations or logical extremes, thankyou.
Other urls found in this thread:
0%
Could you provide your logical reasoning behind this figure?
Pretty low, maybe 1/50 of that in the cold war.
>WW3 happens in 2017
>Weed legalized 2018
bruhhhhh
Extremely low.
The biggest nuclear risk for the past few decades has been terrorist groups stealing or buying nuclear material from a state or rogue state and using it. Or a dirty bomb.
There is next to no chance that nuclear war happens, the elites aren't ready to abandon the planet yet so it won't be allowed to happen.
Full on M.A.D. style war across the planet? Not likely.
An incident involving at least one detonation or a few because of North Korea more than likely? Highly probable at this point and getting more probable with each passing minute.
There are only a few nuclear powers in the world and at this point in time none of them aside from North Korea is expressing any intent towards the other powers - if North Korea crosses that line they're obviously going to regret it. Sure they'll do some damage to other countries but because of it North Korea is going to get wiped from the surface of the planet conventionally by multiple countries.
There are things that are allowed and things that aren't, and North Korea is about to discover this the hard way.
You filthy neutral.
Remember what the cold war was like. Think about how calm and reasonable things are now, i.e literally no chance
Honestly, very very little. The big problems are Syria, ISIS and North Korea and then Iran/Israel. In Syria and ISIS Russia and America more or less have an understanding. In North Korea, Trump is trying to establish one with China. Israel and Iran probably won't do shit for decades to come. Nukes won't help anything. Unless there's some super secret plot to destroy the world.
Same as always.
Don't give in to the Aussie literal shit posting stereotype.
Extremely fucking low
It didn't happen with the Cold War, the other bullshit we got involved in or even when we told Russia to fuck off out of Ukraine
I wasn't alive then and know barely anything about how living in the Cold War was like.
They're not big on real history in history class here, only how whitey killed abos and a reminder that this MYLANNNNNN by the village rapist
>There are only a few nuclear powers in the world and at this point in time none of them aside from North Korea is expressing any intent towards the other powers
hmm
Even if all the actors were in a Nash its not 0% as, assuming the actors are rational, non-actors could destabilize the equilibrium (likely the perception of the equilibrium rather than its true state) and the strategies of one or more of the actors, extraordinary acts of God could have the same effect. Additionally, the chance that one or more actors becomes irrational is non-zero.
0.005% imo
Very low. The risks vastly outweigh the rewards from it. There would be nothing to gain or win if everything is nuked.
Even if we go to war with North Korea I doubt China or Russia would step in. They're very tired of Kim.
Nuclear weapons are a meme. They are like proton torpedos, they only exist as fiction.
The people who control the various moderate freedom fighters are rational actors and wont use nukes, if that makes anyone feel better.
I estimate 25%.
>0.1%
Would require the quick succession of several extremely unlikely events. I think if one were to break out, it would be purely ego/ideology based and have no real rational basis
All sides would have too much to lose, no rational person would ever instigate one, even fatty Kim the third.
Because of Korea? 0%
Everyone knows it's a possibility the US steps in to end NK, and nobody is willing to end the world over NK.
My algorithm has it fluctuating around 3.5% currently.
>nobody is willing to end the world over NK.
North Korea is, which is the point entirely.
How exactly did you get there, then? What factors have you considered? Thanks
My own estimates are that Kimboy isn't so dumb or shortsighted as to do such a thing.
I would love to understand the true power structure behind NK right now. The godlike status of the family is undeniable, but I get the feeling that Kim doesn't particularly enjoy having to deal with all this shit as he is a total nerd from what I understand about him.
I think he constantly needs - or rather: the system constantly needs some kind of "military affirmation" in my layman terms just to maintain Kim's and the state's image.
On the other hand, the media North Koreans are exposed to is completely hermetic and allows no other source information but what Kim and the party approve of. This means that the point above kind of becomes irrelevant. Even if this wasn't the case, I'm curious as to how far he'd be willing to go just for show.
But what exactly can they achieve? Nuke Seoul at best.
Worst case scenario China intervenes in the war again.
North Korea has barely figured out how to build a functioning rocket, let alone produce enough nukes to actually damage anything important
The Doomsday Clock is 2 minutes to midnight, if that means anything
>implying one nuke lobbed to South Korea, or China, or Japan wouldn't actually damage something important
Right, because human lives are worth nothing at all in terms of importance, right, right.
You do realize your post was just fucking stupid, right? Right?
You do realize you're fucking stupid right? Right?
North Korea is literally incapable of ending the world. They have like a half dozen functional nukes at best and can't even put them on a missile, AND they don't have ICBMs even if they DID have the tech to miniaturize their nukes.
>gooks
>human
At least it will cancel out global warming
Global - very low
Unless China takes advantage of the fact that the US is busy in Korea to try a Taiwan invasion.
But North Korea doesn't have the means to end the world.
Nobody said they could end the world, that's already been established in the thread, but the entire concept that they can't do some damage to important places/people/things is fucking stupid, you fucking stupid person.
We're not talking about conventional weapons here, we're talking about nukes and they do have them and they can launch them on missiles that can easily reach everything in South Korea, a lot of China, and everything in Japan as well as ships at sea if so desired which at this point there are quite a lot of in case you haven't been paying attention.
It would just end in North Korea getting vaporized, and maybe a city or two in the USA or China getting nuked.
Do you think china will allow the US to invade nk?
Of course not
Why do you think US will invade nk and china wont do shit?
Why do you think you are best and powerfull?
Just look at the US govt is doing, they know they can get their push in if they play bad
probably at or around 1%
imo the biggest 'hot spot' remains India/Pakistan
>There are only a few nuclear powers in the world and at this point in time none of them aside from North Korea is expressing any intent towards the other powers
U.S. Russian relations at low point amidst Jewish planned arms race.
US-China constant economical-cyber warfare.
India-Pakistan typical Asian neighbors thinking there is differences between them, when their essentially the same.
Eurocucks day dreaming of their empire days, when they pretended to be relevant.
And then there's fucking Israel.
Has any nuclear-weapon capable country other than North Korea flat out made a public statement that said "We're going to nuke you - literally - if you provoke us..."?
No?
My point stands, thanks.
MAD assures that escalation is an impossibility. The world will never get closer to all out war than what happened in Korea (direct combat between the US and China). What we're seeing now is a repeat of the Cold War, and it will last for decades yet.
And that is sad, MAD keep the US in power
If nukes didnt exist then the US wouldnt have the influence it has now
100%
on 9/23/17
India-Pakistan has outright threaten each other with nukes.
And if you followed this topics, you would learned this countries polices & have the ability to read between the lines for not so outright threats. I.E. pursing a policy where nuclear war is the inevitable outcome.
E.G. look back to 2016 when the U.S. wanted to establish no fly zone in Syria
>doomsday clock includes safe nuclear power plants in its threat assessment
in the trash
nuclear power plant isn't nothing like nuclear weapons manufacturing style nuclear material
Nuclear Exchange, Tomorrow? Low.
China is not going to back NK. NK may have the ability to get a few off, but nothing substantial.
Syria, could, but it's becoming more unlikely.
Once IS is routed, if we decide to side with FSA and make a push on Assad, and the Russian's decide to defend, then things can heat up fast. If Russia gets large batalions out into the west desert to block incoming US forces from Iraq, theres a high probability of battlefield nukes being used to stop the other sides forces (kind of like the start of Threads).
The same could happen with a Nato force into Ukraine, but it's much less likely because of fears of fallout on white people.
More than likely Russia would back down in the scenario after ISIS, but it depends how strongly they want to keep their only Mediterranean port.