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.
Hudson Howard
Also a bit I want to add about MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction, since some people seem to not really get the concept: >Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender (see pre-emptive nuclear strike and second strike).[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.
The whole idea behind this is that not only can two nuclear powers not nuke each other without themselves ceasing to exist, but this also implies that no major war of any kind can take place between those powers, since it would lead sooner or later to a nuclear war and again both countries would cease to exist. You can see the resulting behaviour in countries like Pakistan / India: They hate each other but they can't do shit. The only thing they do is bee stings, mutilating soldiers, stealing stuff and in general just being a pain in the ass for the opposing country. There will never be war between those two because it is impossible. Same goes for all nuclear powers on the planet.
In fact nuclear power become more moderate, not more aggressive. Have a good read about this topic here: pastebin.com/RvRysh9p
Elijah Ross
>rational
not the point
hitler started a war he would lose
people miscalculate
also, dat death/kill wish
see Shiva
Juan Anderson
are you excited?
Leo Campbell
>mfw this made me laugh
Ryder Lee
ITT OP never heard of hiroshima
Eli Long
^this >Implying humans are rational
Owen Gomez
ww3 tomorrow
Kevin Morris
>So my answer: Don't be afraid, it won't happen. Noone would profit.
what are you serious ? im actually annoyed thanks
Hudson Rogers
OP is right and nothing will happen
Samuel Anderson
I know a lot of you guys use this "but people are crazy" argument everytime it comes to people doing crazy shit that would kill them. You may be right in cases were ONE person can decide on shit, but this is just not the case when it comes to war. Especially not nuclear. Check to commad chains, there is no "red button" one mad man can push. And yes, humans are irrational, but the majority wants to live. Especially the guys that dedicate their whole life to building a career and gaining power. Suicidal personalities tend to never reach levels of power because.. yeah well they kill themselves before. See school shooters.
Hiroshima was at a time when Japan had no nukes - when pretty much noone had nukes yet. Nukes were fucking new, the whole concept of MAD is from that time. Read a bit about the history of the bomb before just screaming Hiroshima.
Ryan Perry
all this for nothing ?
Aiden Richardson
No worries that line was quite sarcastic. I'd have no problem at all with a little nuclear war to get people's minds back to the important things in life. That is why I thought and read about it and thee result was sadly that it won't happen.
Dylan Kelly
>The answer to that question is noone.
You're forgetting that there are literal death cult terror organizations out there who's ultimate wet dream is to shoot their way into a Pakistani missile silo and launch nukes at every capital city in the world or frame some other country for setting off a dirty bomb in their enemies seat of government.
>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.
DU rounds already exist but I presume you're talking about something extremely autistic like mini-nukes from Fallout.
Luis Turner
maybe a nutcase can do that from inside the usa and crash the plane with no survivors maybe there is there any fellow american with the guts to inside job a nuke
Elijah Johnson
ok, but heres the issue. USA doesnt want to start a nuclear war with NK but NK is a loose canon. The only way to take them out without a nuclear war (however minor it may be) is to take out Kim. Any slip up doing this and it will also lead to a nuclear war, not everyone (NK) doesnt understand or at least care about MAD.
Parker Johnson
>When pretty much noone had nukes yet. Nukes were fucking new >Read a bit about the history of the bomb before just screaming Hiroshima. >Pretty much noone >Read a bit user....
Landon Wilson
Like I also mentioned in OP yes, these are possibilites. Absolutely. Thing is that silos are usually pretty well protected and there is STILL no red button to push to launch a nuke. It is much more complicated than that.
What CAN happen is a broken arrow (lost nuke) turning up in the hands of some mudslime and boom. But that would be a) a pretty small nuke and b) would not lead to nuclear war still.
Yes, getting rid of NK without nuclear war will be actually a big big problem. It requires surgical, simultaneous strikes and killing Kim and his closest followers. Still wonder how that will turn out. But it is possible.
Isaiah Baker
It depresses me that you're right
Noah Wood
>Especially not nuclear.
>One investigation uncovered an attempt to sell bomb-grade uranium to a real buyer from the Middle East
>The man behind the bomb-grade uranium deal was Alexandr Agheenco, known as "the colonel" to his cohorts. He had both Russian and Ukrainian citizenship, police said
>Moldovan officials say there were indications from a foreign intelligence agency that the colonel fled with his infant son through Ukraine to Russia shortly after the bust
>Suicidal personalities tend to never reach levels of power
>who is Hitler
started a war he would lose, and killed himself
Ryder Stewart
>On August 29, 1949, the effort brought its results, when the USSR tested its first fission bomb,
Hiroshima was 1945.
Nathaniel Stewart
Please, god no. The wastelands would be populated by radioactive picrelated.
Both the Slavs and the plant.
Jace Rivera
Yes, so no one except for the US had them.
Alexander Clark
>Nuclear War >Wants to discuss the economics of it Yeah, Lutz, sure, this is not a bait thread.
Jeremiah Lewis
Hitler NEVER intended to loose that war. The history is much more complicated than that.
Hitler acutally thought he could built a 1000 year Reich. Why would he always talk about it when he INTENDED to loose? That is just bullshit.
Exactly, this is why they COULD USE IT. MAD wasn't even is place then, so no consequences. Not possible today.
Colton Howard
Appreciate the analysis Hans, it's somewhat relieving. But it's kind of like saying hey, there's more debt than currency in the world, so why worry about it?
Unavoidably, the longer nukes exist and are kept in a state of being ready to do their thing, the greater chance they will eventually be used.
Do you think countries will maintain their nuclear arsenals, ready at a moment's notice, for the next thousand years? and never deploy them? No? Well, a thousand years is still a very short time, even in terms of human evolution.
Levi Cox
Look up the davey Crocket its "theoretically" possible
Aiden Anderson
Sorry your broken English is throwing me off Achmed.
Jeremiah Rivera
he wasn't rational. he was misguided, miscalculated, etc. propaganda and intolerance for dissent gives people an unrealistic view of their own worth. putin is repeating the same pattern
Evan Morgan
>You could blow up the city, and the US could not react the U.S. would HAVE to react. you're not being reasonable, Ahmed
Robert Thompson
What you both are saying is basically that tensions will rise till someone snaps and is OK with killing off himself and his whole country / the whole world.
This might at some point happen, but today the worlds leaders are to comfy and too good of a live for that to happen.
And again: No red button. Command chains. it takes a whole bunch of mad men to start nuclear war and one sane person in the command chains is enough to stop it. That is the whole idea behind it.
I meant react as in "let's nuke the middle east"-react. Of course they had to react, but how when the attacker was "just" a terrorist group? Nuke all countries were those terrorists have bases? In the case of IS that would mean nuking half the world. Not a viable option. What WOULD follow is a big conventional warfare huntdown with drastic sonsequences, of course. But still no nuclear war.
James Torres
>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.
see
Asher Myers
it's not just that. maybe putin thinks he has super tech that will win war, even tho he's wrong. just like hitler thought he would kick in the door of russia and the whole house would fall down. how did that work out?
when dissent is prohibited, you get an unrealistic positive sense of yourself
russians are already selling nukes to jihadists
war in Israel may be days away. that alone could spark ww3. see samson option and perimeter (russian dead hand)
Hunter Howard
>implying use of tactical nuclear warheads wouldn't provoke a full scale nuclear war Nukes are off the table, even neutron bombs. No one has the balls to try.
Parker Jenkins
If us & 1% of the best people survive a Nuclear War Would be awesome.
Reset, Restart a New Beginning, New Era.
Restart the civilization from the ground. Molding as we want.
It's like be the main character of a movie, anime, series or a survival tv show.
No need to seek boring or harsh jobs. Breaking the rules of society.
Interesting story! Didn't know that one. But again, even IF the IS e.g. managed to blow up a nuke in NY the US would most probably react with a big big crackdown using conventional warfare since they would never be able to cover the backlash from just nuking every country with IS supporters in it.
The idea that someone like Putin could actually fall for his own lies by thinking he can shoot down every nuke aimed for him is interesting. You might have a point there. But afaik all missile defense systems have pretty low success rates atm? And this still would not ensure there are no bombers just throwing the nukes. Your trail of thought is interesting, I like it, but I think it will only be possible in the future, when warfare is so advanced that someone could ACTUALLY think he can win nuclear war. I don't think we are even close to that yet.
you mean the whole idea is for a society to spend a fuckton of money and devote a fuckton of its productivity to a group of important military folks who are supposed to take all that and best case scenario DO NOTHING while the fabric of society is rotting, and we are supposed to FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT?
Joseph Smith
It takes a lot of U235 to make a bomb and even then, its a joke of a nuke. You need lots of plutonium, uranium, lithium 6 deuteride and a lot of top secret information to build a proper H bomb that could fuck up a city. You'd be better off with a dirty bomb as a terrorist.
Anthony Jenkins
No, I absolutely agree with you that it is seriously fucked up and depressing.
Aiden Williams
R A R E R A R E
Rare Flag
Owen Jackson
>But afaik all missile defense systems have pretty low success rates atm?
we have space lasers. the divide between what we have and what's publicly known spans decades
the more pressing concern isn't missiles. those are relatively easy to spot/stop. harder to stop the ones from underground. they say war is boring; warisboring.com
also
nuke missiles are like 60 years old. much more advanced threats since then
Aaron Martinez
they could just as easily sell them a bomb
dirty bomb is more psychological than physical
William Evans
Daily reminder that nukes are fake. Kikes made them up to Jew the goy
>keep those sheckels coming or I'll unleash muh Sampson option
Xavier Johnson
No one will ever use a cobalt bomb, it would ruin the planet. Something like a hundredth of a gram of cobalt 60 on every square foot of the planet would eliminate all life on earth, even cockroaches.
Hunter Wright
the USSR and the US are different omfg
Angel Ortiz
>Restart the civilization from the ground. Molding as we want.
does not work like that you chimpaze , the good example is your country , if nature is superior to you , you shut the fuck up and listen to nature and universe
Jose Parker
Why would anyone sell a warhead to a deranged terrorist state? Have you ever heard of acute radiation poisoning? Its pretty physical.
Caleb Miller
it would require that 1% of people who survived to be fairly alike, would it not?
Jaxson Martinez
and here i thought it was Chile
James Wood
this just proves that you're wrong then. they WILL be used. you said that the US wouldn't go bombing half the world if IS is there. I say you're wrong. ANY use of a nuke in the U.S. would lead to WWIII. we'd burn down the Earth just to find the culprit
Andrew Howard
>Let's do this the rational way. >>Flag How have you not been enriched? Are you actually posting from Germany?
Landon Hill
if they've got nothing to lose they will
when ww3 breaks out everybody will use everything they have
they're selling bomb-grade uranium. same problem. if it's clear beforehand to take precautions, then ? we move around nukes all the time
why? again, see miscalculation. also see Shiva, the god of (self) destruction
war happens throughout human history. you think human nature has changed just because we have different tools? no lads, war is coming
> Daily reminder that nukes are fake. Kikes made them up to Jew the goy I believed this conspiracy theory when I was 16. stopped at 17. never made it into adulthood with that theory intact
Joseph King
you assume he isn't simply Ahmed from Frankfurt
Benjamin Hall
ayylmaos disabled all the nukes
Zachary Bell
No one would spend money developing cobalt bombs, the only use for one is a worldwide cyanide pill. I doubt anyone with actual warheads would sell them to a muzzie and I doubt muzzies could turn fissile uranium into a devastating bomb.
Henry Sullivan
Hopefully
Anthony Wilson
wrong...
Camden James
they might plan to live underground for a long time. they might plan to live in space. russia has developed cobalt nukes
they aren't selling cobalt nukes to jihadists. just regular bomb-grade nuclear material
>I doubt muzzies could turn fissile uranium into a devastating bomb.
muzzies like Pakistan?
Easton Long
actually they could activate your weak dna and made you a human zombie, oh wait.. anyway and made you a human zombie and you become a fearful jihad warrior and a syrian national hero
Nathan White
That is something unconfirmed, therefore I can't say anything about it. IF you are right regarding this stuff there might be a chance for nuclear war, but this is just pure speculation at this point. We can only base discussion around known facts if he should lead anywhere, otherwise we could just talk aliens. Interesting but leads nowhere.
I think your view of geopolitics is kind of limited.
White guy from small town that hasn't be enriched yet. Moved here basically because of that.
Cobalt nukes and stuff like this are "in a case of the biggest shtf event ever" topics. They are only relevant if the whole is fucked for several reasons anyways. I still think noone would agree to destroying the earth and live underground voluntarily when they just can live on this earth with a shit ton of money and whores at their feet.
Zachary Peterson
Gamma rays don't care about the ground, they can pass through feet of lead. Cobalt 60 is a gamma emitter. Everything woud die.
Michael Perez
You have to wear protective gear when dealing with those. Not joking.
Tyler Williams
If nukes were real they would have been used in combat. They're a meme to get people to believe that (((MAD))) is the reason why big countries no longer fight wars. The actual reason there hasn't been a major war since WW2 is because all the biggest states are 100% owned by Jews. The Cold War was a sham that was meant to mask the fact that the USSR and USA were both ZOGs who were invading the third world together to spread two different types of Jewry.
Oliver Perry
You forgot to mention the jews are ayyyylmaos!!!!!!
Grayson Cook
>Chile Im almost insulted, user
Blake Campbell
You think Germany would accept its status as a US vassal if their population realized nukes were fake?
Robert Cook
You think your mother would accept your status as a mongoloid if she realized how dumb you really are?
William Lee
No nuclear ww3?! Damn...
Cameron Howard
I don't even get what you wanted to say with this post.
Ryan Campbell
>nukes are fake What is in my jar of trinitite, then? Why is there a bunch of radioactive fused sand all over white sands nevada? What happened when the tsar bomba test triggered seismographs everywhere on the planet three times from the shockwave?
