Nuclear War Theory Thread

Nuclear War Theory Thread

out of general interest i want to know your opinions on how the world could ignite into nuclear war, and how soon it could be

> this thread isn't because Donald is POTUS, it's just something that i'm interested in

It won't unless terrorists use them. Every country that has nuclear weapons won't be dumb enough to use them. NK isn't a threat because they're kept on a leash by China, which is their life line.

Nuclear war won't happen.

This is because as soon as one launches, they all launch and then comes the nuclear winter, right?

Well, we know if Hilary was elected, she would have started WWII. She said she would impose a no fly zone over Syria. Russia has a military base in Syria, so if they would have flown out she would have had them shit down starting a war with Russia. She said this during the last debate

all they need is an underground city with self sustaining energy and they will hop in, seal it up and wait for nuclear dust to settle

also syria would be cut off to any supply and trade done over air, therefor creating conflict and russia would shove a Tsar up merica's asshole

The whole "Hillary will start WW3" thing wasn't just a meme, we came very close to a dangerous imperialist in office.

The situation in Syria is balls to the wall fucked, I can give a summary if anons want, its in between UFC fights anyway.

go for it

Lurking

Thank you. Not many people seemed to understand this during the election.

So first off, we should understand that the situation in Syria is t necessarily unique. America has pursued a foreign policy of supremacy and intervention in the Middle East ever since the Soviet Afghani invasion, and the dollar standard deal with the Saudis. Libya, Iraq, etc... All have been about money flowing from the Middle East.

Syria is no different. Iran and Saudi Arabia both proposed different gas pipelines that flowed through Syria, control was necessary to approve the American friendly plan. However the wrench was thrown into the plan when Assad became buddies with Iran and Russia. The normal American policy of funding rebels didn't work so well when Assad had a strong federal army, backed by Russian air and Iranian ground support.

After ISIS invaded the situation just went nuts. There are now I think four rebel groups, all trying to depose Assad, and all with Saudi/American funding (Al-Qaeda, Free Syrian Army, Al-Nusra, and something called the Sultans Army).

So there's a three way war between the rebels, Assad, and ISIS, and the Kurds are caught in the middle. The Kurds arm themselves, make a basic militia, and hold their territory. If any of the other three groups saw them as a threat they would be eliminated hard, everyone else is just worn too thin atm.

The Turks don't want the Kurds having a united border, so they invade northern Syria. At this point the country is fucking torn apart, the only areas remaining any sort of law and order are the areas controlled by Assad.

So throughout all this America has been keeping a watchful eye on the situation, and has acted as mediator in the "humanitarian crisis". They have also drone striked numerous Syrian and ISIS targets.

So Russia and America broker a peace in the name of humanitarian aid, which America breaks a week after signing, as it seemed to only be a cover to allow the rebels to regroup...

This brought the two veeeery close to war, but luckily tensions died down. Might continue

Continued...

Yeah so that brought them dangerously close to war because Russia was rightfully pissed, but America didn't give a shit.

After the peace was broken there was an inquiry from congress I think it was, to discuss the possibility of a no-fly zone over Syria. General Joseph Dunford is in the committee overseeing Syria, and he rightfully told congress that it's a stupid idea and would lead to war. Russia also confirmed that.

So people were rightfully worried when Clinton started spouting that shit, and even more so when she started claiming Russian interference in the election, support of Trump, etc...the antagonization rightfully made many worried.
Clinton also said she wanted to arm the Kurds more. It sounds good, but if they stopped funding the rebels there would be no need to arm them...

So yeah when Trump said he wants to end ISIS with Russia and Syria a lot of us breathed a sigh of relief. He doesn't answer to the same lobbyists Clinton does, he doesn't care about the YEMENI******* pipeline, it wasn't spot he Sauds who proposed it, it was Yemen. But the Saudis obviously supported it.

Yeah, I think I covered most of it. It's pretty fucked. If you want any mercenary work you can start with the Lions of Rojava and kill some ISIS niggers.

When Putin finds out your mom has a dick

so where does aladdin fit into all this?

He flew his magic carpet up op's ass

He's with ISIS

hahahha

No one gave a fuck about nuclear war since 1987. Now all of a sudden "Donald Trump!" and everyone a peacenik again.

Thanks for that. I always wondered what was the buzz with the no fly zone

aladdin is actually the kingpin in the sultans army, he packs about 6000 megatons worth of thermonuclear weapons under his turban. reason nobody ever sees him is because he is oily as fuck and slides through the desert like nobody's business

Tits, or you don't you know what you're talking about

actually, i've been interested in the possibility of nuclear war since fallout 3 came out lol

Are Assad memes good enough?

nobody is discussing the newly unveiled Satan II missile?

how many megatons?

Designed to fit up op's ass

Yeah, russia was ammasing their arsenal near the border a few weeks ago. The put a whole naval fleet into the Mediterranean to get a few booming subs in along with it.

I can't find a number, but Russia claims it can reduce texas or France to dust

Naval fleet recently started shelling ISIS and rebel positions.

could it be the theoretical 100 megaton bomb that russia was bragging about a while back? this is how big it would supposedly look from the ISS

for 60 years,US nukies have been built never employed,because cuck foreign tin pots of previous ages knew from first hand what the US military could do, if sufficiently provoked.
a new generation of tin pots,a new generation of 3 & a couple ascending unto the first worldworlders who now have the tools of massive damage,,8 or so nations now possess nukies.Some ignoramus with the nukie tools may think they can do a lot more than flip us the bird,fly over or buzz our blue water navy ships,our bases, how might nukes be used? I do not fucking know,only that 4 or 5 nations have been tickling the dragons' tail,
from which empty skull might the order be given to let fly at us? eye dee kay

I don't think nuclear war could be caused by human action. All people with nukes know the danger so they wouldn't blow it at each other. Computer glitches tho... then were screwed

No, then the countries without sufficient anti nuke defense will be fucked

kek, >texas or France
'awe shit, we missed France. Fuck it, Houston, yeah we've got a problem.

I've been playing a ton of Fallout 3 just in case.

How many nukes left? I just wanna know if my town is still on the targets map.

it's actually one of the most advanced military technologies in the world, the Russians have progressed far enough to program the missiles to only target these locations, so the question is, what do France and Texas have in common?

cowboy bars?

like 4000 or something i think. could be getting confused with something else

Ok so considering that the big cities will take a handful each... there is still plenty to go round.

Shit.

the majority of the nukes are controlled by USA and another country, can't remember which

...

cuba?

what's a nuclear alliance? i'm in australia so idk whether that's a good thing or not

While I'm not too sure, I suspect it has to deal with having a country with nuclear armaments in agreement to not nuke your country

If we go down you go down with us

t. Canadian

Nuclear war doesn't need to end with apocalypse. If someone blew up a small Hiroshima sized device in a remote location, say an ISIS camp in Iraq for example, I don't think the world leaders will just go all in and nuke the everyone else because of that. The weapon doesn't need to be a missile either. We've had conventional, albeit very large, cannons that can safely deliver nuclear bombs since the 60s or earlier. I would not rule out the possibility of strategic nukes being used in the near future, as alarming as it sounds.

...

If shit goes down rest assured that China will bomb the crap out of us. Once the dust settles they will move in and harvest the minerals. They wouldnt give 2 fucks and have always coveted Australian turf.

Checked.

Yes, both US and Russian engagement policies now allow it. Thanks Obama.

they can try but i'll rape them

So the Iranians take a supertanker and refit it into a SCUD launching platform. Then they sail it into the Gulf of Mexico, and off the coast of Louisiana, they fire the SCUD to a target about 100 miles above St. Louis. The nuke goes off and the EMP send the USA into the dark. The supertanker explodes and sinks, leaving no trace. Within 3 days, the USA descends into Mad Max land and in about 6 months, 75% of Americans are dead. How about that?

I think fallout got it right.

Resource war is probably the most viable reason. Most large countries won't go to war with each other over petty reasons because they need to get the support of the population as to not trigger a coup or a rebellion among the people, or even something like removing the leaders from office democratically.

However resources are a precious thing, and if there was a severe shortage of resources like fossil fuels we could potentially have an outbreak of war from many different nations across the globe, with small nations being annexed by larger ones, conscription, and eventually launch of nuclear payloads.

good

>starting WWII
>2016

The Tsar Bomba WAS the 100 megaton bomb. But 100 megatons was too scary so they didn't install the "U-238 tamper" what ever that means.

Are you implying nuclear winter won't happen?

nukes use the uranium isotope 235 because it allows for a chained fission reaction. tsar was a hydrogen bomb, which means it uses hydrogen (or at least an isotope of it) to also create nuclear fusion. both fusion (mashing 2 atoms into a new one) and fission (splitting atoms) create huge amounts of energy in the form of an explosion

Seems appropriate-
the 4 foot thick roofs on our minuteman silos are useless against a bunker buster (or solid steel slug with a little motor, dropped from altitude). Therefore, if the combined Chinese & Russian air forces could penetrate our airspace, say because our best were out helping Europe fight itself, then we would have incentives to launch before our asset is remedied.

Other anons have summarized it better than I can, but, I'd like to chime in.

Former Army OIF veteran reporting. I don't know everything, but, having seen the inside, the writing was on the wall with Hilldawg.

She would impose a no-fly zone over Syria, Russia would rightfully ignore it, and we'd fire on one of their planes. That, gentlemen, is an act of war. That would give Putin the in he pretty much wants (or, wanted, his beef is personal and died when Clinton lost the election largely) to pop off.

We've entered every major conflict over small acts like a plane getting shot down. Don't think it's "not a big deal" - it's an act of war that Russia would be all over.

Now, as an Army vet who has fought in Iraq, I can say that none of us fear any of the durkas. They are disorganized, undisciplined and untrained when compared to NATO forces.

What I do fear is Russia. They're on point. They won WW2, though we lent a hand. They're hard, they're trained, they're good at what they do.

It would escalate.

This is where nukes come in. We'd begin fighting Russia, but they aren't durkas, so the fight would be evenly matched, with mass casualties. China would likely enter the fray with Russia, and I guarantee North Korea would too, dragging in our allies to our defense. World at war.

How and when nukes would enter the equation is harder to nail down, but, they would. WW3 would and will end with a nuke.

We absolutely, without a sliver of doubt in my mind, dodged a huge fucking bullet by electing ANYONE but her.

TRIPS

>How and when nukes would enter the equation is harder to nail down, but, they would.
Once Russia was bottled up behind its own borders, with no air or sea presence outside, then what? Launch a nuke?

Alex Jones has a hypothetical on YouTube of what WW3 would look like. Basically Obama declares martial law then all the countries who have beef pounce. China defends their steel supplies in Austrailia by attacking Aus, etc. The nuclear portion begins with atom splitting in Charleston.

>Hilldawg
the world is a powder keg right now and donald wining is the only thing that seems to be easing off a little tiny amount of pressure.

This is the conventional wisdom.
But I'm not sure it's true. What if, say, America nukes a non-nuclear power? Maybe it doesn't have any close nuclear allies (who would really retaliate if we nuked Venezuela or Iran?). Or maybe it has nuclear allies but the nuclear allies are not willing to risk direct attack for the ally. Would we really risk direct attack by nuking China if they nuked South Korea or Japan?

I think all the sane governments share this consensus but I question its accuracy. And you only need on rule breaking renegade to challenge it: