Global thermonuclear war: still a risk?

[Johny2x4]

Nope, this comes from a dude who was in the USN. Not from me.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nope, this comes from a dude who was in the USN. Not from me.

Funny, I was in the USN, and ASW was my warfare specialty. Been a few years since I did any, though.

 

[Johny2x4]

Funny, I was in the USN, and ASW was my warfare specialty. Been a few years since I did any, though.

What ship/service? Who knows, maybe you guys know each other.

This was two, maybe one and a half years ago. The topic came out during problems with Iran.

 

[bikerdruid]

i find it interesting that, in two pages of posts, no one has mentioned israel.
they are a nuclear power, capable of delivering to any one of several neighbouring nations considered their enemies.

 

[Darth Rotor]

i find it interesting that, in two pages of posts, no one has mentioned israel.
they are a nuclear power, capable of delivering to any one of several neighbouring nations considered their enemies.

Yes, they are. Oddly enough, they took out Syrian nuclear something via conventional means in a similar fashion to the way they took out Iraqi nuclear capability almost 30 years ago?

Why do you think they did it that way?

Do you understand what deterrence is?

 

[egslim]

If they believe that they can go out in a blaze of glory and get their afterlife, then yes, they are worse. Much worse.

That sentiment is more or less restricted to males between 18 and 23.

Older men tend to be more careful with their lives. Regardless of religion.

The US is infinitely more likely to attack Iran, than a nuclear Iran is to attack either the US or Israel. Except in retaliation.

Of course. But it takes time and money to do so. And a lot of engineering and testing.

So? Like I said, given the political will and a few years it can be done.

Iran could put nukes into half a dozen US cities by smuggling them in.

Too complicated.

A much safer solution would be to take a handful of the most disgusting little fishtrawlers you can find, and place a nuke in each of them. They would not be stealthy like an Ohio-class submarine, but nobody tries to keep track of them. Keep safely in international waters where nobody cares, ready to sail into an enemy harbor when ordered.

A slightly more complicated alternative would be to equip such a trawler with a hidden nuclear-tipped SCUD-like missile.

Pretty sure the UK has subs capable of crippling the USA too. And France.

Every second rate power (Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, India and Japan) either has the capability to destroy the US, or could obtain it in the space of a few years.

Of course said power would be destroyed in reply, and nobody fancies committing suicide. Including the US, which is why those second rate powers are safe from US intervention as well.

 

[Seismosaurus]

From what I heard from a US Navy sailor, their ASW is kinda ******. Just a sub could cripple the USA with a few strikes at key locations (and vice versa, that´s the whole MAD thing).

It's not awful, though it's eroded in some ways since the cold war. No dedicated fixed wings on the carriers any more for instance. Much better sensors nowdays, though.

But I doubt the whole US Navy could find a Vanguard, even at the height of their capability. They're quiet as a mouse, and with Trident D5s you have a whole lot of ocean to hide in - a Vanguard could hit Washington DC from anywhere in the Atlantic, most of the South Atlantic, a good portion of the Pacific, the Barents sea, the Mediterranean... you'd have half the world to search through.

Fun fact, you guys know of the Russian deadman´s switch? Basically if Moscow goes up in flames, ALL their nukes fly automatically. It´s an automatic response system.

I find that rather difficult to believe. In fact, I flat refuse to believe it on the grounds that the system would be almost impossible to build.

 

[gnome]

A good question is not whether a global thermonuclear war could occur tomorrow, but how quickly we could find ourselves back into a situation where we ARE on the verge.

 

[excaza]

Don't you mean 12th Imam jihad????

Aslo, for those of you interested in this topic, Newsweek recently published a short essay by AQ Kahn, "father of" Pakistan's nuclear capability.

Worth a read. http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/pakistan-s-a-q-khan-my-nuclear-manifesto.html

The title is "I saved my country from nuclear blackmail."

Enjoy.

Also, Shopping for Bombs by Gordon Corera

 

[bikerdruid]

Fun fact, you guys know of the Russian deadman´s switch? Basically if Moscow goes up in flames, ALL their nukes fly automatically. It´s an automatic response system.

you are going to have to come up with darn good evidence to back up this fantastic claim.

 

[Trantor]

My opinion is that in the short term, nuclear war will not be happening. In the long term however, nuclear war is to be expected. The depletion of natural resources and the ever increasing human population, will be two of the biggest contributing factors in a future large scale nuclear war. Religious differences will also play an important role, as always.

The good news is that after we nuke each other, over-population will be far less of a problem. And who knows, the survivors might just learn a few things and may do better in the long run. Remember, even a thousand years is not a long time in the long run.

Concerning which counties are presently nuclear ready. I agree that Japan can go nuclear in a major way very quickly. Also, in my opinion, Israel is probably stacked. I bet they have far more nukes than anybody thinks and they also have the ability to deliver them. Israel may be a little country, but they pack a very big gun.

 

[Almo]

Indeed.

The worst possible people to have their finger on the button are those that believe that life is a passing phase and it will all be better in the hereafter.

Christians, last I heard, believe this as well.

 

[theprestige]

i find it interesting that, in two pages of posts, no one has mentioned israel.
they are a nuclear power, capable of delivering to any one of several neighbouring nations considered their enemies.

Why is that interesting? Israel's relatively tiny nuclear arsenal is almost entirely irrelevant to any discussion about the risks of global thermonuclar war.

Maybe if the thread were about "risk of a regional thermonuclear smackdown in the Middle East", you'd have a point of some kind.

 

[bikerdruid]

Why is that interesting? Israel's relatively tiny nuclear arsenal is almost entirely irrelevant to any discussion about the risks of global thermonuclar war.

Maybe if the thread were about "risk of a regional thermonuclear smackdown in the Middle East", you'd have a point of some kind.[/QUOTE
the concensus in the thread seems to be that global nuke war is unlikely, but regional nuke war seems quite likely.
therefore, israel is very relevant here.

 

[excaza]

Personally, I'm more worried about a 3rd party nuclear event rather than one undertaken by a nation. How well that aligns with reality I have no idea, it just seems more likely to me.

 

[gnome]

My opinion is that in the short term, nuclear war will not be happening. In the long term however, nuclear war is to be expected. The depletion of natural resources and the ever increasing human population, will be two of the biggest contributing factors in a future large scale nuclear war. Religious differences will also play an important role, as always.

I disagree that nuclear war over resources is inevitable--though having a nuclear deterrent may very well be a large factor in who are the top players for dwindling resources, should that become an issue.

A global nuclear war would actually result in the participants having access to fewer resources than if they had gone on competing for resources in the usual way--even those that were losing out already from a relative point of view.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Fun fact, you guys know of the Russian deadman´s switch? Basically if Moscow goes up in flames, ALL their nukes fly automatically. It´s an automatic response system.

I find that rather difficult to believe. In fact, I flat refuse to believe it on the grounds that the system would be almost impossible to build.

you are going to have to come up with darn good evidence to back up this fantastic claim.

Or, you know, y'all coulda just looked it up yourselves.

Dead Hand (Russian: Система Периметр, Systema Perimetr)[1] (known also as Perimeter,[2]) is purportedly a Cold-War-era nuclear-control system used by the Soviet Union and in use in Russia. An example of fail-deadly deterrence, it purportedly can automatically trigger the launch of the Russian ICBMs if a nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity and overpressure sensors. By most accounts, it is normally switched off and is supposed to be activated during dangerous crises only.​

Far from "nearly impossible", it would actually be quite easy from a technical viewpoint. Just set up a couple dozen sensors, light, heat, air pressure and siesmic and a computer system that's programmed to push the button if they all go off within a millisecond of each other.

You appear to have stepped on at least one persons commie-philia here, Johnny2x4. Setting up an automated genocide machine is something that only capitalists would do. The spawn of Stalin and Lenin would never do such a thing.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

America, as the only country is the world to have shown it is happy to use nuclear weapons against civilians,

America was never "happy" to employ nuclear weapons. You're projecting your own hatreds on those you hate, truther.

 

[bikerdruid]

Or, you know, y'all coulda just looked it up yourselves.

Dead Hand (Russian: Система Периметр, Systema Perimetr)[1] (known also as Perimeter,[2]) is purportedly a Cold-War-era nuclear-control system used by the Soviet Union and in use in Russia. An example of fail-deadly deterrence, it purportedly can automatically trigger the launch of the Russian ICBMs if a nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity and overpressure sensors. By most accounts, it is normally switched off and is supposed to be activated during dangerous crises only.​

Far from "nearly impossible", it would actually be quite easy from a technical viewpoint. Just set up a couple dozen sensors, light, heat, air pressure and siesmic and a computer system that's programmed to push the button if they all go off within a millisecond of each other.

You appear to have stepped on at least one persons commie-philia here, Johnny2x4. Setting up an automated genocide machine is something that only capitalists would do. The spawn of Stalin and Lenin would never do such a thing.

do you consider this as evidence that this system actually existed?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

do you consider this as evidence that this system actually existed?

We know that the Soviet Union was the second most genocidal state in history (after communist China). Communist nations have shown a chronic lack of respect for human life. We know that it would have been a technically simple system to build with a superpowers resources.

And we know that you didn't have enough time to read the wikipedia article and the articles it linked to in the time it took you to respond.

Why don't you get on that and then get back to us?