Viewing 15 posts - 41 through 55 (of 55 total)
  • WW3
  • HarryTuttle
    Full Member

    Several people have mentioned MAD as a reason WW3 won’t be nuclear. However, I’m becoming less and less comforted by that. As I understand it to get a true nuclear winter and global fallout requires lots of megatonne or bigger warheads to get the particles high enough. In the last few decades, warheads have got smaller as they are more accurate, most are ‘only’ low hundreds of kilotonnes now. There’s also less of them. The overall result is a full-scale war is more survivable than it’s been at any time since the ’50s. Which in turn makes MAD less of a deterrent and war more likely.

    Along with that is the failing of various treaties in recent years, the development of new delivery systems like Putin’s nuclear-powered cruise missile, etc.

    I think there’s a very real chance I’ll witness a nuclear attack somewhere in my lifetime. Which isn’t a cheery thought.

    sharkbait
    Free Member

    I would like to think that the next generation of leaders – i.e. our kids – are a lot more switched on than we are.

    El-bent
    Free Member

    Look at the history of civilisations. They all collapse eventually but the tragic thing about modern humans is that we have the technology and the knowledge to create utopia, but our brains are still partly hardwired like aggressive, territorial monkeys.

    The bronze age collapse. As you have mentioned, we have the technology, but are too conflicted to use it everyone’s advantage. While it takes many components to create the perfect storm, two primary ingredients are capitalism, and our ability to vote the wrong leaders into power off the back of wanting simple answers to complicated questions.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    El-bent
    Free Member

    I would like to think that the next generation of leaders – i.e. our kids – are a lot more switched on than we are.

    You would think that, but every generation has those within it who seek power for nefarious reasons, all voted in by let’s say “misled” people who as I’ve said above, want simple answers to complicated questions.

    ayjaydoubleyou
    Full Member

    It’s like a plot from a Bond movie

    The best one, Quantum of Solace.

    Missed a trick not calling that one Skyfall didn’t they

    sharkbait
    Free Member

    Very true. I just hope that there are more Obama’s and zero Trumps in the next generation.

    nick1962
    Free Member

    International finance and globalization should make WW3 less likely surely?Would the wealthy, powerful Russians and Chinese really allow their governments to blow up their expensive Western property portfolios and devastate the value of their other overseas investments?

    joefm
    Full Member

    As above. The world is more globalised now then ever. The largest economies are all tied very much together.

    dangeourbrain
    Free Member

    Would the wealthy, powerful Russians and Chinese really allow their governments to blow up their expensive Western property portfolios and devastate the value of their other overseas investments?

    They’ve been tied for a very long time, marrying rich folks to enemies is a time honoured way of creating peace (saxe coburg and gottha sound familiar?) big wars are rarely started by people playing the same game as everybody else. It’s the gavrilo princip and hitlers of this world who are the risk.

    Ww3 when it happens will start out of a group of poor angry hungry people who pull down the rich, just like Germany in the 30s or the rise of isil. The next person to rise to prominence like al-baghdadi in the middle east might decide taking a proper pop at Israel is worth the risk, and then we’re all screwed because the one thing you can be sure about is the moment anyone launches a nuke everyone does.

    Drac
    Full Member

    Ww3 when it happens will start out of a group of poor angry hungry people who pull down the rich

    Ah! When we vote for a labour government.

    dangeourbrain
    Free Member

    Ah! When we vote for a labour government.

    We’ll be fine, corbyn is a pacifist.

    crazy-legs
    Full Member

    Ww3 when it happens will start out of a group of poor angry hungry people who pull down the rich, just like Germany in the 30s or the rise of isil. The next person to rise to prominence like al-baghdadi in the middle east might decide taking a proper pop at Israel is worth the risk, and then we’re all screwed because the one thing you can be sure about is the moment anyone launches a nuke everyone does.

    That is just a proxy war though. It would rely on some group/faction etc – maybe terrorists or maybe a wannabe independent state with some sort of tenuous claim to some disputed territory somehow managing to acquire the weapons, means of delivery and the knowledge to do so. That’s a lot more complicated than just buying a shedload of AKs and RPGs. Generally, most countries have the storage and launch of their nuclear weapons under quite close control – it’s not really the sort of thing you just stick on Terrorist Ebay. Unlike AKs and RPGs.

    In a situation like Syria, Yemen and so on you do end up with what is essentially a war between the Russians and Americans with one side supporting (say) the Government while the other side support the rebels by selling arms to them although you also end up in situations where American-made kit then gets used against the very people it was originally meant to support via other trade routes. But ultimately while they might be quite destructive on the ground, it’s a relatively local conflict to take (or keep) control of an area of a country so no-one wants to go nuclear with it cos you just end up wrecking the very land you’re trying to seize (or keep).

    Much more simple to use chemical or biological weapons. Slightly more localised, more difficult to detect and doesn’t make the land uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years…. Cheaper too. That’s the big threat.

    nobbyq
    Free Member

    don’t think there will be an all out nuclear war , we moved on from that , its all cyber/space now , u can do more damaged shutting down infrastructure permanently . if anything it will be a terriot nuclear attack ,thats just my opinion from working at skynet !

    dangeourbrain
    Free Member

    Slightly more localised, more difficult to detect and doesn’t make the land uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years

    Maybe not that long anthrax is about 50 years, but I can’t see Vozrozhdeniya Island generating many hits on zoopla any time soon.

    jjprestidge
    Free Member

    One thing I’ve learnt over the years is that humans are completely useless at predicting the future. Almost everything that even the most learned people have tried to predict about the future has been wrong.

    Regarding climate change and related conflicts, here’s an article from the Guardian in 2004, where the Pentagon tells us that London will be experiencing Siberian winters by 2020 and there’ll be ‘Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. ‘

    Linkie

    It’s worth asking yourself who benefits from division and fear in society.

    JP

Viewing 15 posts - 41 through 55 (of 55 total)

The topic ‘WW3’ is closed to new replies.