The world's first nuclear exchange

[Lonewulf]

I'm not optimistic as some of you here. I don't believe it will be in my lifetime but someday the human race is going to wipe itself it out with nuclear or whatever weapon comes next. You can say I believe the worst of human nature will bring as all down in the end.

It's hard to be disappointed when you predict the downfall of civilization is at hand...

 

[Hamradioguy]

If we are the victim state I trust we will respond with nukes. Decisively.

One take on how this might play out is addressed in the movie, "By Dawn's Early Light" (Based on the book "Trinity's Child"). It's a good example of how I believe a nuclear exchange could begin: The "Things spin out of control" scenario.

 

[Steve H]

Interesting thread. I voted "never" myself but it was made in the context of a overt 'country vs country' exchange* which I don't think will happen (knock on wood). India/Pakistan came close in late 2001 and it wouldn't have surprised me if Pakistan would have resorted to nukes to stop a conventional Indian military onslaught if things escalated but those two traditional foes have chilled out the last few years. Iran doesn't have a nuke yet and I doubt they'd risk a nuke exchange with Israel which unofficially has a lot of 'em. North Korea likes to rattle it's sabre but never had the need to go to the next step since they're coddled every time they make noise (S. Korea actually paid them to agree to a meeting a few years back!) and I doubt any potential China/Taiwan (U.S.) conflict would go nuclear.

*All bets are off if a terrorist suitcase-type nuke is detonated somewhere but it's not a given that such an attack would necessarily be "state-sponsored" or conducted against a nuclear-armed country.

 

[Schneibster]

Simple question: whadda ya mean, "exchange?" You mean a full-blown all-out nuclear exchange, or onesie-twosies? The answers are very different for these two, IMHO.

 

[Steve H]

[quote="Schneibster']Simple question: whadda ya mean, "exchange?" You mean a full-blown all-out nuclear exchange, or onesie-twosies? The answers are very different for these two, IMHO.[/quote]Spare the semantical BS. The difference between "onesies-twosies" and "all-out nuclear exchange" is predicated on the number of nukes the combatants have and are willing to use and it's a safe bet no one here needed you to tell us that. Either vote/comment or take a hike.

 

[Schneibster]

Steve H, meet mute button. Mute button, Steve H.

Bye now.

 

[Steve H]

Something tells me I have plenty of company in that respect.

 

[Lonewulf]

Something tells me I have plenty of company in that respect.

I think I've already earned it myself.

If not, I will someday.

 

[Schneibster]

Well, since you mention it...

Two things I have no use for: woos, and aggressive woos.

It must be nice to join the likes of David Jay Jordan and hammegk.

 

[Lonewulf]

What's your definition of either?

 

[Schneibster]

Woos are people who don't know enough to talk intelligently about the subject they're talking about, but have very strong opinions. They come in various forms; IDers, fanatic AGW deniers, and the occasional complete nutjob like the above-mentioned DJJ, who believes that jebus invented sex.

No, I'm not kidding. Go look it up; it's over on SMM&T.

I don't really care what your politics is; as long as you have some sort of intelligent reason for believing it. For example, Darth Rotor is pretty right-wing; but he's not a nutjob. Has a good grasp of realpolitik and military history. Unfortunately, people on my side of the fence rarely have that; it's seen by many as some kind of infatuation with military science. I've never figured that one out; and I've muted a lot of people from my side of the fence for it, too.

I don't do it for simple nastiness, either- I can be pretty damn abrasive myself, and frankly, I really don't care what people think about it. But persistent nastiness, I see no point in listening to- nor do I bother with it myself. If I'm being nasty to someone every time they open their yap, obviously I shouldn't be reading it. Easy to fix.

And DanishDynamite is most definitely on the list; but not just for wooery. There's where the part about aggressive comes in. I'm not interested in being anyone's playtoy- I just mute them, and then make nasty comments until they go away if necessary.

So if you think it's merely that I don't like your politics, think again. If I've got you on mute, you should be seriously considering whether you're making a mistake. In fact, a series of mistakes- because that's what it takes.

 

[This Guy]

I went with never. I think if it does happen it's more likely to be between India and Pakistan. As mentioned by someone else, they seem to be in a cooling down period currently. Hopefully they will play nice with each other.

I think it's more likely that it will be something set off in the back of a truck or car, by some radical (pick a flavor). Now, if that happens to be a car or truck setting in Downtown Jerusalem, then I suspect that at least one major city in the Middle East will suffer retaliation on a grand scale. I hope it never comes to that, but I fear it's just a matter of time. And I think we (the US) are almost as likely a target as Israel.

I don't think any sane nation would try a full frontal nuclear attack on the US. Having served as a "Cold Warrior" (11 FBM Submarine Deterrent patrols, 72 days each on average, under the water), and knowing what our abilities were when I got out, and having seen the next generation of gadgets that were going on the Trident II Fire Control System/Ohio class Submarines, I have no doubt that we could rain down a torrent of nuclear warheads that no defensive shield could withstand, and that could be done if every man/woman/child on land in the US was dead, and every plane/satellite shot down. It would be suicide on a national level to even try it. Of course if Nuclear Winter is a valid theory, it might be suicide on a global level

Even using air burst detonation for a "cleaner" explosion (not as much surface matter is thrown up to be contaminated and blown about as with a ground burst) there would likely still be more than enough radiation spread around to make things pretty ugly. Would it be an Omaga Man scenario? Probably not, but I think those areas most affected by the radiation cloud would be devastated, and that the results would make Chernobyl look minor in comparison.