Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
If nobody had nuclear weapons 10:36 - Mar 29 with 1503 viewsgtsb1966

Do people think WW3 would've happened by now. The world is in such a state and fractious i can't see how it wouldn't have happened.
[Post edited 29 Mar 2017 10:38]
0
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 11:23 - Mar 29 with 1432 viewsmonytowbray

I feel it's a bit too simplistic to say nuke stock alone is a key factor in why we haven't seen WW3 yet. For the most part a better connected world means countries are far better connected and have similar interests at heart. We're also wary of the damage fascism caused in WW2 and I think that lesson has stuck for a long time, although we seem to be getting more distant from that memory every day and the same ideologies have snuck back in.

I'd be amazed if a nuke isn't dropped somewhere before the end of my life expectancy, the question is where it will be and who will drop it.

TWTD never forgets…
Poll: How close will a TWTD election poll be next to June results?

1
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 11:48 - Mar 29 with 1394 viewsGuthrum

"World War Three" is a slightly vague concept (particularly now that European powers no longer have imperial interests circling the globe), but between the threat of nuclear holocaust and a drive towards unity (the UN, NATO/Warpac and the EEC/EU) they have almost certainly prevented another major European war.

Plus probably the further escalation of conflicts in Africa, the Middle and Far East.

The danger of mutual devastation (which was in place by the time everybody had recovered from the exhaustion of WWII) proved a severe check on letting things get too out of hand.

The 18th century was notable as a century of conflict, including the first truly "World War", the Seven Years War 1756-63, which involved both European and non-European powers and was fought across five continents.
[Post edited 29 Mar 2017 11:50]

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

0
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 11:56 - Mar 29 with 1381 viewsWeWereZombies

If nobody had nuclear weapons on 11:23 - Mar 29 by monytowbray

I feel it's a bit too simplistic to say nuke stock alone is a key factor in why we haven't seen WW3 yet. For the most part a better connected world means countries are far better connected and have similar interests at heart. We're also wary of the damage fascism caused in WW2 and I think that lesson has stuck for a long time, although we seem to be getting more distant from that memory every day and the same ideologies have snuck back in.

I'd be amazed if a nuke isn't dropped somewhere before the end of my life expectancy, the question is where it will be and who will drop it.


I have always expected a limited nuclear exchange in my lifetime - more as a pessimistic 'best not to be too happy go lucky' rather than through any detailed reasoning but one other factor to consider is the continuing escalation of firepower that has led to the controversy around depleted uranium in conventional weaponry.

The era of MAD (mutually assured destruction) as a deterrent does seem to be drawing to a close.

Poll: Luton or Dubai ?

0
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 12:08 - Mar 29 with 1368 viewsGuthrum

If nobody had nuclear weapons on 11:56 - Mar 29 by WeWereZombies

I have always expected a limited nuclear exchange in my lifetime - more as a pessimistic 'best not to be too happy go lucky' rather than through any detailed reasoning but one other factor to consider is the continuing escalation of firepower that has led to the controversy around depleted uranium in conventional weaponry.

The era of MAD (mutually assured destruction) as a deterrent does seem to be drawing to a close.


I don't think it is when it comes to the nuclear superpowers (USA/NATO, Russia, China). There is still that brake on all-out war.

The real danger of a limited exchange is among the lesser powers: India-Pakistan (less likely nowadays, IMO), North Korea (depends how far they feel themselves pushed) or in the Middle East (technologically some way off, Israel unlikely to initiate unless under immediate threat).

But even for those, it would be an extreme step and likely to bring down pretty universal opprobrium (not to mention sanctions and maybe even armed intervention) on their heads.

I still think that things would have to get a whole lot messier before there was any real danger of seeing nuclear weapons used in anger.

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

0
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 12:46 - Mar 29 with 1347 viewsLord_Lucan

If nobody had nuclear weapons on 11:23 - Mar 29 by monytowbray

I feel it's a bit too simplistic to say nuke stock alone is a key factor in why we haven't seen WW3 yet. For the most part a better connected world means countries are far better connected and have similar interests at heart. We're also wary of the damage fascism caused in WW2 and I think that lesson has stuck for a long time, although we seem to be getting more distant from that memory every day and the same ideologies have snuck back in.

I'd be amazed if a nuke isn't dropped somewhere before the end of my life expectancy, the question is where it will be and who will drop it.


Well we all know the answer to your final sentence.

A limited nuclear exchange is possible but unlikely as it would almost certainly involve a Russian ally. If a nuclear missile was fired then the president and his merry men would be underground. Unfortunately any retaliation will knock out americas command system, the generals will be like rabbits in a spotlight, remote orders could be miscommunicated, pre laid directions could be misinterpreted and in a blind panic things will escalate.

I don't think it will happen but who knows.

I would like to think that the heads of the Russian or American militaries would topple their paymasters before it got that far.

I do think that the prospect of nuclear war has prevented war, not that I love nuclear weapons.

If we survive another 100 years (which I think we will) there will undoubtedly be a much more powerful deterrent than nuclear force. It would probably ensure a more guaranteed distruction and or a bigger deterrent. You can decide which.

“Hello, I'm your MP. Actually I'm not. I'm your candidate. Gosh.” Boris Johnson canvassing in Henley, 2005.
Poll: How will you be celebrating Prince Phils life today

0
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 13:00 - Mar 29 with 1313 viewsBlueNomad

If nobody had nuclear weapons on 12:46 - Mar 29 by Lord_Lucan

Well we all know the answer to your final sentence.

A limited nuclear exchange is possible but unlikely as it would almost certainly involve a Russian ally. If a nuclear missile was fired then the president and his merry men would be underground. Unfortunately any retaliation will knock out americas command system, the generals will be like rabbits in a spotlight, remote orders could be miscommunicated, pre laid directions could be misinterpreted and in a blind panic things will escalate.

I don't think it will happen but who knows.

I would like to think that the heads of the Russian or American militaries would topple their paymasters before it got that far.

I do think that the prospect of nuclear war has prevented war, not that I love nuclear weapons.

If we survive another 100 years (which I think we will) there will undoubtedly be a much more powerful deterrent than nuclear force. It would probably ensure a more guaranteed distruction and or a bigger deterrent. You can decide which.


Last paragraph -

It would be great if all that development work could go in to improving life for mankind.
0
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 15:14 - Mar 29 with 1258 viewsWeWereZombies

No one has really answered the question of ever bigger, more sophisticated weapons approaching what we once thought of as devastation only capable of being produced by nuclear weapons, albeit over a smaller area. And then there are the two nuclear warheads unaccounted for in US audits - who has them? On this second point, if the US has a robust audit regime and freedom of information that allows such troubling facts to be known how less certain can we be that Russia has not leaked bombs to their mafia, especially during those fraught Gorbachev and Yeltsin years? Looking at this issue purely from the point of view of conflict between nations ignores some other, even less comfortable, players and arenas of war.

Poll: Luton or Dubai ?

0
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 17:49 - Mar 29 with 1184 viewsGuthrum

If nobody had nuclear weapons on 15:14 - Mar 29 by WeWereZombies

No one has really answered the question of ever bigger, more sophisticated weapons approaching what we once thought of as devastation only capable of being produced by nuclear weapons, albeit over a smaller area. And then there are the two nuclear warheads unaccounted for in US audits - who has them? On this second point, if the US has a robust audit regime and freedom of information that allows such troubling facts to be known how less certain can we be that Russia has not leaked bombs to their mafia, especially during those fraught Gorbachev and Yeltsin years? Looking at this issue purely from the point of view of conflict between nations ignores some other, even less comfortable, players and arenas of war.


Weapons technology has gone in a different direction than huge amounts of destruction in the last 50 years.

Better guidance systems have changed the emphasis to lower powered, but highly accurate munitions. Fitting multiple, maneuverable warheads to ballistic missiles have allowed multiple, discrete targets within an area to be attacked, rather than having to obliterate several square miles in the hope that what you're trying to hit is somewhere within that.

Most deployed nuclear warheads, such as the W88 which is used in Trident II, have maximum yields no larger than half a megaton (tho can be set much lower than that), very small by thermonuclear standards.

Russian/ex-Soviet nuclear material is a major headache for those working in non-proliferation. Particularly with what was happening during the Yeltsin era.

The good thing is that nuclear weapons are very difficult to construct, maintain (e.g. lithium deuteride is highly unstable, toxic, explosive and difficult to extinguish once alight) and get to work properly, let alone having efficient delivery systems for maximum effect. This is going to be far beyond the capabilities of any but state operators with commensurate resources and top physicists on hand.

As regards to future, even more destructive weapons, the limitations are the laws of physics. In terms of releasing energy, there are few methods more efficient than a nuclear reaction (and even that isn't very efficient). Maybe some form of antimatter, but that is extremely tricky to create, contain and use.

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

0
Login to get fewer ads

If nobody had nuclear weapons on 20:00 - Mar 29 with 1139 viewsLord_Lucan

If nobody had nuclear weapons on 17:49 - Mar 29 by Guthrum

Weapons technology has gone in a different direction than huge amounts of destruction in the last 50 years.

Better guidance systems have changed the emphasis to lower powered, but highly accurate munitions. Fitting multiple, maneuverable warheads to ballistic missiles have allowed multiple, discrete targets within an area to be attacked, rather than having to obliterate several square miles in the hope that what you're trying to hit is somewhere within that.

Most deployed nuclear warheads, such as the W88 which is used in Trident II, have maximum yields no larger than half a megaton (tho can be set much lower than that), very small by thermonuclear standards.

Russian/ex-Soviet nuclear material is a major headache for those working in non-proliferation. Particularly with what was happening during the Yeltsin era.

The good thing is that nuclear weapons are very difficult to construct, maintain (e.g. lithium deuteride is highly unstable, toxic, explosive and difficult to extinguish once alight) and get to work properly, let alone having efficient delivery systems for maximum effect. This is going to be far beyond the capabilities of any but state operators with commensurate resources and top physicists on hand.

As regards to future, even more destructive weapons, the limitations are the laws of physics. In terms of releasing energy, there are few methods more efficient than a nuclear reaction (and even that isn't very efficient). Maybe some form of antimatter, but that is extremely tricky to create, contain and use.


What colour emulsion were you using today and did you get a nice cup of tea pet?

“Hello, I'm your MP. Actually I'm not. I'm your candidate. Gosh.” Boris Johnson canvassing in Henley, 2005.
Poll: How will you be celebrating Prince Phils life today

0
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 21:10 - Mar 29 with 1103 viewsWeWereZombies

If nobody had nuclear weapons on 17:49 - Mar 29 by Guthrum

Weapons technology has gone in a different direction than huge amounts of destruction in the last 50 years.

Better guidance systems have changed the emphasis to lower powered, but highly accurate munitions. Fitting multiple, maneuverable warheads to ballistic missiles have allowed multiple, discrete targets within an area to be attacked, rather than having to obliterate several square miles in the hope that what you're trying to hit is somewhere within that.

Most deployed nuclear warheads, such as the W88 which is used in Trident II, have maximum yields no larger than half a megaton (tho can be set much lower than that), very small by thermonuclear standards.

Russian/ex-Soviet nuclear material is a major headache for those working in non-proliferation. Particularly with what was happening during the Yeltsin era.

The good thing is that nuclear weapons are very difficult to construct, maintain (e.g. lithium deuteride is highly unstable, toxic, explosive and difficult to extinguish once alight) and get to work properly, let alone having efficient delivery systems for maximum effect. This is going to be far beyond the capabilities of any but state operators with commensurate resources and top physicists on hand.

As regards to future, even more destructive weapons, the limitations are the laws of physics. In terms of releasing energy, there are few methods more efficient than a nuclear reaction (and even that isn't very efficient). Maybe some form of antimatter, but that is extremely tricky to create, contain and use.


Yeah, maybe I've allowed 'Breaking Bad' to seep into my imagination and am thinking that the mob have a tame Walter White who is a physicist rather than a chemist.

More worryingly, my search for evidence of more powerful weaponry took me to the wikipedia page on Cluster munitions. I'm wondering how widespread their use is after the Dublin convention of 2008 and if depleted uranium is still used. It's an example of a term that can pass you by as just another armament but looking at their impact, they have small components but affect a wide area and the clean up work after a war could make sweeping for land mines easy by comparison.

Poll: Luton or Dubai ?

0
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 21:35 - Mar 29 with 1073 viewsMJallday

If nobody had nuclear weapons on 11:23 - Mar 29 by monytowbray

I feel it's a bit too simplistic to say nuke stock alone is a key factor in why we haven't seen WW3 yet. For the most part a better connected world means countries are far better connected and have similar interests at heart. We're also wary of the damage fascism caused in WW2 and I think that lesson has stuck for a long time, although we seem to be getting more distant from that memory every day and the same ideologies have snuck back in.

I'd be amazed if a nuke isn't dropped somewhere before the end of my life expectancy, the question is where it will be and who will drop it.


smart money has to be on fat boy kim over in NK
or ISIS
or Donny T

Stilton eating Participant - 1977 to Present Day
Poll: Will you be renewing if you are an existing ST Holder - given todays news?

0
If nobody had nuclear weapons on 22:04 - Mar 29 with 1045 viewsmr_bean

I'd say it's unclear.
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024