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.

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.

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/RvRysh9p
youtube.com/watch?v=PvDvN5oYoZw
foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/09/the-dustbin-of-history-mutual-assured-destruction/
nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

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 hope for it or be afraid, it just won't happen. Noone would profit.


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

All you have to do is convince one side they are about to lose...

Countries which can unironically use nukes in future.
1. DPRK
2. Pakistan

Nuke kino recommendation:

youtube.com/watch?v=PvDvN5oYoZw

This
DPRK - last resort when backed into a corner
Paki - either madman took power, terrorist takeover or last resort against collapse (china investment only avoids the last one, the other two are still there, while increased economic strength and military assets mean greater risks for the region)

Kim is probably the only madman that would actually kill himself / his country and nuke SK / Japan as a last resort, but I think his military would kill him before. Most people still don't want to die, and they would if they pushed the button.

The Pakis will never use nukes. For the same reason: It would be no "last resort against collapse", it would be suicide. The country would cease to exist. Again: Most people want to live after all. They would kill the leader wanting to use nukes.

The vast majority of humans does not want to die.
No leader has a red button he can push by himself.

>Most people still don't want to die
Allahu akbar
Problem is they want to and are surrounded by like minded crazies

Your very first premise is flawed.

>There must be a rational explanation for everything or it couldn't possibly happen.
>Only rational things happen.
>Only rational people get put in charge and they always make rational decisions.
>Nothing ever happens that isn't rational.

Yeah, or what's more likely, somebody fucking crazy could do something crazy for crazy reasons, like MOST of History.

Stupid faggot, no offense.

haha you fool, its already happened.

MAD only works assuming that no new defenses will be developed that allow one side to make the first strike and prevent most or all retaliation. US is trying to do this now which upsets the balance and that's why it's dangerous.

the only places left unnuked would be south america and africa because theyre not worth the time, the world then would turn into planet of the apes

next time you want to know whos going to be behind the nuclear holocaust just look at the apes

MAD is also not actually a protocol anymore.

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

jews

tl;dr, pic related

You don't get the point: The leader might be crazy, and some followers, but the whole command chain being crazy and wanting to die? Nope. There will always be people sane enough to not want to die in those groups able to make such a decision, and they would prevent it from happening.

The nuking of Japan happened in a time were noone else hade nukes and MAD wasn't in place. Bad example.

Yes, this is true. But so far there is no country that can assure 100% safeness being attacked by a nuclear triad.
>A nuclear triad refers to the nuclear weapons delivery of a strategic nuclear arsenal which consists of three components: land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), strategic bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
Noone out there can fight this atm.

It is still the case though. Anyone nuking someone would be obliterated instantly.

How? Do you really think Jews want to risk a) living in a nuclear wasteland and b) loosing their precious holy land?

True.

Which isn't MAD. There are distinctions.

MAD was also a coined term made by a think tank and had no salience or strategic advantage. US or Russia otherwise.

>foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/09/the-dustbin-of-history-mutual-assured-destruction/

Ok if you want to make a point saying that MAD involves more than both countries assuring each other to be obliterated during cold war politics you are right. Still does not change the fact that nobody could ever survive nuclear war.

Of course they can. Buy a thick enough building. Asteroids are way way worse.

I meant "nobody" as in "no country".
Nuclear war would leave everyone in a cold and dark place full of death. Nobody wants that.

>First we have to ask ourselves who would profit from an all out nuclear war.
Off to a bad start i see.
Its not necessarily about who would profit from a nuclear war. if one country feels threatened enough and some admiral or general decides that the pre conditions for the nuclear option have been met he may give the order. if it goes through the side getting hit will likely assume all out nuclear war is inivetable and retaliate to neutralize the opossing countries. This actually did come close to happening before. the orders were given, luckily they were not acted upon.

However in this case you are even more wrong because there are players that could benifit from nuclear war should their proxy war fail in its objectives which would lead to toal meltdown of the global status quouo. A way of sort of overturning the chestboard to make sure that when things go to shit because of drastic economic disaster from their failed geopolitics that they can at least make sure their rivals do not take advantage of the void.

Not going to bother to coontinue reading because it would be too tedious.
Polite sage because i have seen this copy paste before and it is obvious slide thread.

That's also a myth. Nuclear winter was debunked in the 80's. You could say it was downgraded to a "nuclear autumn". There are too many variables to dictate a rapid extinction level event from sub 100 megatons.

>luckily they were not acted upon.
... and that is exactly what I'm saying: There is always someone in the command chain that won't take part in pushing the buttons.

>sort of overturning the chestboard
It would be completely destroying the chessboard. That is something different.

>obvious slide thread
Not at all, I just like to collect opinions on that specific matter. Also there is nothing to slide right now, the CNN fuckery is already widely known by now.

It does not have to be nuclear winter. The destruction of economy and infrastructure would be enough to make all countries affected dive back into the middle ages for some time.

Not really city busters are not even a thing anymore. Tactical Nukes are the lay of the land now, you'd never have a Terminator 3 scenario in this climate. With infrastructure gone, you would have inevitable ground invasion/assimilation after the fallout. Blanket apocalypse is a thing of fever dreams. Unless it's natural.

How exactly are city busters no a thing anymore?
pic related - B83 currently in US arsenal

That's a tactical nuke it has variable yield. It's only 1.2 megatons. City busters are triple that.

The trident and minuteman warheads are city busters

Ok so why is this tactical nuke nuke that could bust Moscow completely no city buster?

I get you point, Tsar Bomba was 100mt, but today's active 1.2mt warheads can still destroy all major cities easily.

Minuteman I warhead is just about as strong as the current B83 according to nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Nope those have MIRVs ...still tactical. The B53 was our last city buster and its been deactivated.

digits for a nuke on mecca
checkem

There is a disction because they are propagated to take out existing infrastructure like power grids and aqueducts. They are readied for civilian areas. Like strategic nukes they aren't valued on how much of a city is destroyed that's not the aim of strategic/tactical nuclear warfare.

*Aren't readied for civilian areas

*Strategic

Ok I get the technical term and why you mention it.
But still: China has 5mt nukes in its arsenal, pic related.
Those are by far big enough to fuck up US infrastructure, economy and social order instantly.

City buster ostensibly means it can wipe out an island, the measurement is due surplus. Extend the fireball radius beyond Compton and you have your city buster.

Measured from the Atoll tests.

it will happen at some point but probably not between USA and Russia. Some Muslim country with nukes though, absolutely.

I get it but why do you think this fact changes anything about countries using nukes being fucked beyond repair, therefore refraining from doin so? Do you really think US would be fine with "just" loosing Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York city centers because it would still not mean apocalypse?

Why would they? If Iran nuked Israel e.g. Iran would cease to exist as a country within minutes.

Japan lost two city's from two nukes and the world didn't end. Just because the technology has advanced doesn't necessarily mean that there will be an extinction level event within the confines of said conflict. It's hasn't happened yet so that is very hypothetical.

Not really, Iran is 10 times larger than Israel.

You miss my point: Of course there won't be an extinction level event but the damage is still big enough to make all countries refrain from using nukes at all, which is the point of OP.

Teheran would be gone and all government structures would break down in minutes just from ONE B83, pic related.

forgot pic

not big enough damage especially if they take precaution.

>You don't get the point: The leader might be crazy, and some followers, but the whole command chain being crazy and wanting to die?
You're forgetting about nepotism. The top hires not the best but the most loyal commanders. These men do the same, and the trend continues all the way down the chain.

If only .1% of the population is fanatical enough for nuclear war, then only .1% of the population will be eligible for operating the silos. This handpicking process could easily happen in dictatorships like North Korea.

>who would profit from an all out nuclear war.

stopped reading there.its not about profit

Read what you just wrote you brought up "Apocalypse" that's a very biblical word that denotes a certain amount of carnage. You're nuke map is not also tabulating the fact of the course of wartime protocol that would need to inevitably happen if the tables were turned n that direction. Just because one country falls doesn't mean automatic proliferation if anything it would mean quite the opposite stratagem wise especially when it comes to nationalistic fervor.

>German poster

totally meaningless 49th post

totally meaningless 50th post several minutes later

Anyway sorry for interrupting :)

lol sorry I only posted that because the thread looked like fun and I couldn't resist same as usual, don't read too much into it