Global thermonuclear war: still a risk?

Sword_Of_Truth said:
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?
Click to expand...

.....because i believe it does not exist, nor did i suggest that it did.

burden of proof and all that.....


(btw...who's 'we'...you got worms in your pocket?)
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You said it's interesting that Israel hasn't been mentioned. I think it's a clear indication that the consensus of this thread is that Israel isn't even relevant in the context of a regional nuclear conflict.

You think it is "very relevant"? Alright, prove it: Discuss Israel in the context of this thread, demonstrating its relevance.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Fair enough. You said it's interesting that Israel hasn't been mentioned. I think it's a clear indication that the consensus of this thread is that Israel isn't even relevant in the context of a regional nuclear conflict.

You think it is "very relevant"? Alright, prove it: Discuss Israel in the context of this thread, demonstrating its relevance.
Click to expand...

israel has a history of violently over-reacting to albeit provocative actions of it's neighbours, and muslims within its borders.
they have a nuclear arsenal and have flatly refused to enter any discussion or treaties about them.
i'd say that these things make israel very relevant to the discussion of the possibility of regional nuke warfare, in the real world.
 
bikerdruid said:
israel has a history of violently over-reacting to albeit provocative actions of it's neighbours, and muslims within its borders.
they have a nuclear arsenal and have flatly refused to enter any discussion or treaties about them.
i'd say that these things make israel very relevant to the discussion of the possibility of regional nuke warfare, in the real world.
Click to expand...

So discuss. What level of provocation do you think it would take, for Israel to overreact with a nuke? Obviously, nothing its neighbors have done so far has been provocative enough. What would they have to do, to trigger the kind of response from Israel that would be relevant to this thread?
 
theprestige said:
So discuss. What level of provocation do you think it would take, for Israel to overreact with a nuke? Obviously, nothing its neighbors have done so far has been provocative enough. What would they have to do, to trigger the kind of response from Israel that would be relevant to this thread?
Click to expand...
i don't respond well to pandering.
who in hell are you to demand i discuss?
israel has shown itself trigger happy and unpredictable.
how the hell would i know what could set them off.
 
bikerdruid said:
burden of proof and all that.....
Click to expand...

I gave you a wikipedia article with over a dozen references. All you've given in response is argument from incredulity and your own refusal to read anything that falls outside your narrow world-view.

bikerdruid said:
(btw...who's 'we'...you got worms in your pocket?)
Click to expand...

Those of us who aren't apologists and devotees for histories bloodiest 'ism.
 
Johny2x4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Retired after about 25 years back in 2005. ;) Numerous ships and assignments. :cool:
 
bikerdruid said:
israel has a history of violently over-reacting to albeit provocative actions of it's neighbours, and muslims within its borders.
they have a nuclear arsenal and have flatly refused to enter any discussion or treaties about them.
i'd say that these things make israel very relevant to the discussion of the possibility of regional nuke warfare, in the real world.
Click to expand...

In other words, Israel keeps getting attacked by its neighbours and having the audacity to fight back and win. Their victories clearly mean they defend themselves with "disproportionate force". How dare they!?!? I insist that next time Israel is attaked it loses and by loss I mean, the country is swept away and dismantled and a medeivalist paradise of squalor and backwardness be allowed to take its place.

Of course, what you have actually said suggests that Israel is not a nuclear threat. They continually win their wins against "albeit provocative" neighbours with no need recourse to nuclear weapons. How many wars have they now fought against "albeit provocative" neighbours without using nuclear weapons? If only every country in the world could be considered so restrained. The problem, of course, is that no one - not even Israel-bashers - dream that other countries would be so restrained. When Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait the wishful-thinkers on the left were dreaming of Saddam Hussein's gleaming WMDs. The same people counsel that North Korea should be given what it wants because to defy the country would be to risk nuclear war.

I've got an idea! If you really are worried that one day, Israel will go a bit too far in its response to "albeit provocative" neighbours why don't you suggest to the aforementioned "albeit provocative" neighbours that they cut out their "albeit provocative" behaviour?
 
Hey look over there!

(did it work?)

Ok I personally still worry about global nuclear warfare. But I'm certainly no expert on the subject, I see a few of you know quite a bit, so let me see if you can't educate me on a few things.

I'll probably always worry that at some point humans will fire them. From any country. When you've got enemies and you've spent a lot of money building missiles that could kill them well, it just seems inevitable to me.

But since we've gotten past the U.S.-Soviet Cold War maybe we're a bit safer. But here's my real concern. Accidental launch.

I assume that nukes rely on some sort of automated computer system to launch, am I right or wrong? Computers are very reliable but nothing is perfect. There is always a glitch in the system eventually. Is there really no possibility of an accidental launch due to computer error? I can only imagine that some Soviet systems aren't the most up to date, probably other countries as well.

And is it so hard to imagine a few rogue missiles from Russia leading President Palin to decide to end all life on the planet and send all of us to be judged by her pal Jesus?

Scratch that. If Sarah Palin becomes president I'll pray for nuclear annihilation. We'd deserve it.
 
angrysoba said:
But tell me, what was the point in injecting Israel into the conversation?
Click to expand...

Because some people think that Israel's 100 warhead stockpile are as great a threat to humanity as the former USSRs 3,000+?

It doesn't make sense to me, either.
 
PGH said:
Hey look over there!

(did it work?)

Ok I personally still worry about global nuclear warfare. But I'm certainly no expert on the subject, I see a few of you know quite a bit, so let me see if you can't educate me on a few things.

I'll probably always worry that at some point humans will fire them. From any country. When you've got enemies and you've spent a lot of money building missiles that could kill them well, it just seems inevitable to me.

But since we've gotten past the U.S.-Soviet Cold War maybe we're a bit safer. But here's my real concern. Accidental launch.

I assume that nukes rely on some sort of automated computer system to launch, am I right or wrong? Computers are very reliable but nothing is perfect. There is always a glitch in the system eventually. Is there really no possibility of an accidental launch due to computer error? I can only imagine that some Soviet systems aren't the most up to date, probably other countries as well.

And is it so hard to imagine a few rogue missiles from Russia leading President Palin to decide to end all life on the planet and send all of us to be judged by her pal Jesus?

Scratch that. If Sarah Palin becomes president I'll pray for nuclear annihilation. We'd deserve it.
Click to expand...

The ICBM and SLBM systems in the USA are most certainly not autmomated. Whether from a sub or a missile silo, the order would come down from the President, and after confirming the orders are authentic and some other procedures, two officers would have to turn keys at the same time in order to launch. I don't know about Russia or China or wherever but I assume the procedures are similar.

There has been at least one case where global nuclear war was nearly started by accident though. IIRC, the Soviets, probably because of their crappy hardware thought that the USA had launched a surprise attack. A retaliatory response was almost fired but some officer figured there was an error and stopped it, literally saving the world.
 
Thanks for the response. So we can see that while it may not be very likely for a missile to be launched accidentally it is entirely possible for errors to occur where one side believes the other has launched a first strike.

So if it happened once, and we survived due to pure luck and one person's rational decision, there's really nothing to stop it from happening again. What happens when that one guy isn't there next time?

All life on the planet could end at any time due to a damn computer error. Almost poetic.
 
Johny2x4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is it automatic in the sense of a system that operates without further human intervention, or is it just a standing order that if, say, Radio Moscow goes off the air for a certain number of days then the base commanders should automatically draw their own conclusions? The former seems unlikely, the latter more possible.

Supposedly British Nuclear Submarines had similar orders in the event that the Today programme wasn't broadcast on BBC Radio 4 for 3 consecutive days, the assumption being that London was no more.
 
1) quit the bickering
2) quit importing unrelated arguments into this one.

Play nice, wash your hands frequently and use a tissue.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
PGH said:
Thanks for the response. So we can see that while it may not be very likely for a missile to be launched accidentally it is entirely possible for errors to occur where one side believes the other has launched a first strike.

So if it happened once, and we survived due to pure luck and one person's rational decision, there's really nothing to stop it from happening again. What happens when that one guy isn't there next time?

All life on the planet could end at any time due to a damn computer error. Almost poetic.
Click to expand...

A nuclear error, but I have no fear
London is drowning-and I live by the river
 
Last edited:
kmortis said:
1) quit the bickering
2) quit importing unrelated arguments into this one.

Play nice, wash your hands frequently and use a tissue.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
Click to expand...

I love you. :)


but yes, lets get back to thermonuclear war.
 
You can't fight in here, this is the thermonuclear war thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom