First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply The threat of nuclear war is greater than ever
5731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Palatine, Illinois
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

Jwade316 wrote:


SelfConciousParadox wrote:


Jwade316 wrote:

Hell is coming.

Prepare for the end of days.


This sh*t might last a lot longer than other wars.


Be prepared to fight for survival.


;_; You crazy mate? What the hell can a 14 year old do?!
6628 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / England
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
I feel like any country that isn't completely brainwashed will completely go against their government firing nukes. We live in the age of the internet. We have friends from all over the world. The last thing many people want is for their friends to be killed by their own country.
Posted 7/12/15
it always is after i eat taco bell
Sogno- 
45766 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

bserria wrote:


haikinka wrote:

Why can't we just all be friends.

We can't, because you won't l'eggo of my eggo.



u were so obsessed about ur eggos that i took ur legos
5619 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
The chances of Nuclear Warfare are extremely slim on the European Front with Russia. The Nuclear detterance and protection today, compared to the Cold War. Is far greater than it was during that time period. The majority of eastern European countries are dotted with U.S. and NATO military bases and missile silos. Russian aggression is on the rise but it's all political. Russia is just flexing and trying to intimidate. Another Ukraine incident will have far more severe reprecussions, especially geopollitcally. Russia only recieved sanctions and frozen bank assets and their economy is reeling over.

Europe is somewhat dependent on Russian energy. That's the only dent Russia can really do. Their military is out-dated; except for their choppers and jets. They're top in world but have no combat experience.

I believe Russia is a far less threat. The real bang for our buck will most likely be Korea. If North Korea decides to shell Seoul or far worse attempt to Nuke it. Shit will happen. That Nuke will be so hard to stop because on short the distance is.

China will most likely get pulled in. Chinese aggression is far worse than Russian
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/14/15
I think it would be a great time for the US to leave NATO.





Any NATO country under 2% spending is breaking the contract anyway.
16857 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
Let's get that global nuclear winter going! It can stop all of this global warming!
5658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Las Vegas
Online
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15
There's no point in worrying about it, though. If it happens, it happens. It's not like I can stop two or more countries from fighting each other.
37164 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
It's hardly the first time in the past few decades Russia has threatened to use nukes. It's just political posturing.

I don't think the threat of nukes being used is much greater now than it has ever been. There is always the risk of course. We will never be free of that... until an even more devastating weapon comes along.
3492 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Chapel Hill, N.C
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
Hey Nostradamus, can you tell us what's in store? Anyway, I think North Korea is more likely to use a nuke than Russia despite the Kremlins words.
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15
People, can we stop killing each other?

Thank you.
27365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15
I've expected that there's really not enough attention span to go around for such a long article (people won't read it), and that all the points being missed would have to be quoted.


pirththee wrote:

Nope. The US is farther from nuclear war now than it has been in many years.Putin's gambit has cost the Russian economy dearly ,as has the reduction in oil prices.Putin now enjoys wide reaching support at home, but a famous Russian named Leon Trotsky once noted that"Any society is only three square meals away from anarchy".



Krazylegz26 wrote:

The chances of Nuclear Warfare are extremely slim on the European Front with Russia. The Nuclear detterance and protection today, compared to the Cold War. Is far greater than it was during that time period. The majority of eastern European countries are dotted with U.S. and NATO military bases and missile silos. Russian aggression is on the rise but it's all political. Russia is just flexing and trying to intimidate. Another Ukraine incident will have far more severe reprecussions, especially geopollitcally. Russia only recieved sanctions and frozen bank assets and their economy is reeling over.

Europe is somewhat dependent on Russian energy. That's the only dent Russia can really do. Their military is out-dated; except for their choppers and jets. They're top in world but have no combat experience.

I believe Russia is a far less threat. The real bang for our buck will most likely be Korea. If North Korea decides to shell Seoul or far worse attempt to Nuke it. Shit will happen. That Nuke will be so hard to stop because on short the distance is.

China will most likely get pulled in. Chinese aggression is far worse than Russian



kinga750 wrote:

It's hardly the first time in the past few decades Russia has threatened to use nukes. It's just political posturing.

I don't think the threat of nukes being used is much greater now than it has ever been. There is always the risk of course. We will never be free of that... until an even more devastating weapon comes along.


Actually it's the opposite. Many Cold War safeguards aren't there anymore. Add to that a sense of complacency that wasn't there before (The similar false calm before WWI):


In the Cold War, he pointed out, both sides had understood this risk and installed political and physical infrastructure — think of the "emergency red phone" — to manage tensions and prevent them from spiraling out of control. That infrastructure is now gone.

"All those mechanisms were disrupted or eroded," he said. "That [infrastructure] has been degraded since the end of the Cold War because the common perception is that we don’t need it anymore."

That the world does not see the risk of war hanging over it, in other words, makes that risk all the likelier. For most Americans, such predictions sound improbable, even silly. But the dangers are growing every week, as are the warnings.


9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15
No its not. The amount of paranoid nutters on this forum is just baffling. A nuclear war would mean the entire first world would be fucked. Once one missile is fired all the treaties would lead to all the missiles being fired. Nobody wants that so nobody would fire a missile.

Though I would like to point out how the article thesis is that nuclear war is still possible not "Greater than ever" as the OP put it.
27365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15

luckystax wrote:

Nuclear War will never happen, because if one side fires missiles, then the entire world is dead because every one says screw it, we're dead already and fires there own. That's why it never happened in the Cold War, and that's why it won't happen now.



Like I've said, people won't read the article so I'd just have to quote its points. Bolded by me for emphasis. See below.


megahobbit wrote:

No its not. The amount of paranoid nutters on this forum is just baffling. A nuclear war would mean the entire first world would be fucked. Once one missile is fired all the treaties would lead to all the missiles being fired. Nobody wants that so nobody would fire a missile.


Yes it is. The Russian military doctrine under Putin is based on winning a nuclear conflict.


But when you consider this doctrine from the American side, you begin to see what makes it dangerous, even insane. Imagine that you are an American leader and your forces in Eastern Europe have somehow been drawn into conflict with the Russians. Perhaps, as artillery and planes from within Russia hammer your forces, you counterattack on Russian soil to take them out. The Kremlin, fearing the start of an invasion to take Moscow, drops a tactical nuclear warhead on your forces in Estonia or Latvia. You have no idea whether more Russian nuclear strikes are coming, either on the battlefield, more widely on Europe, or even against Washington or New York. Do you respond with an in-kind tactical nuclear strike, opening the risk of gradual escalation to total nuclear war? Do you, fearing the worst, move to take out the Russian leadership before they can order more attacks? Or do you announce a unilateral ceasefire, drawing your forces back in humiliation, rewarding Russia with a victory?

Russia's nuclear doctrine is betting that any American leader — not to mention the leaders of nuclear-armed France and the UK — would choose the last of those three options. If that prediction turned out to be wrong, it would mean nuclear war, perhaps global nuclear war and thus annihilation. This doctrine, in other words, is gambling with the fate of the world.

Such a scenario, to be clear, is remote, as are all of the nuclear scenarios. It would require a cascading series of events, and for neither side to pull back in time as those events built. The odds of this happening are quite low. But they are greater than zero, and growing. Such a scenario is within the realm of possibility — if it were not, then Russia would not regularly conduct military exercises that imagine exactly this outcome. And recall that Alexander Vershbow, the deputy secretary general of NATO, told a conference in late April that NATO is gaming out exactly such a crisis.

There are yet more worrying implications to this Russian doctrine. Its logical conclusion is that Russia sees itself as able to fight a war with the conventionally superior United States without losing, and that it can do this by using battlefield nuclear weapons. Under this doctrine, Moscow is deeming not only full-blown war against the US as imaginable, but a full-blown war with at least one nuclear detonation.

That, perhaps, can help explain why Putin has seemed so willing to ratchet up the possibility of a real war with the United States, even one involving nuclear threats — he may believe that through his superior will and brinksmanship, he can avoid defeat. Adding a nuclear element to any conflict would also seem to increase the odds of NATO's Western European members splitting over how to respond, particularly if Russian propaganda can make the circumstances leading up to the detonation unclear.

But this also shows the degree to which his entire strategy may rest in part on a shoddy premise — that "limited" nuclear war can be winnable — and one that puts the entire world at risk.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.