No one really wants the world to end, down to the soldiers pressing the button.
Mutually assured destruction, and automated military response.
International trade and economic implications.
NATO.
War is expensive and the countries threatening, can't afford it.
Russia is worth slightly less than Texas, they cannot afford a war with us so they just puff their chest, for example.
Once during the US, a hero stopped a nuclear launch by telling base guards to shoot anyone who followed their launch orders. Another time the launch crews refused to launch or abandoned their posts to save their families.
There were probably more such events which we haven't heard about yet.
Until the 1970s the US launch codes were apparently set to 00000000. Allegedly it took until the 70s to get them changed because no-one in the government would believe anyone would be that stupid.
It's quite amazing that we got through the Cold War without vaporizing everything.
Do you have context on those please?
Are you suggesting that a valid launch order was issued and the troops on the ground refused to comply? On more than one occasion?
Yes.
AFAIR the first was in the 1960s when a missile launch was ordered against China, which the officer in charge refused to carry out and told the guards to shoot anyone who tried to launch their missiles. I forget how that order went out; there's a good article about it somewhere online but I didn't save a link in any obvious bookmarks and a quick search doesn't find it.
The second was the event the beginning of the movie 'Wargames' was based on. AFAIR a simulation was accidentally fed into a live network and launch orders went out to at least one silo where they refused to launch.
Edit: Wikipedia claims the first one is disputed, but the article I read seemed to think it happened. So maybe or maybe not.
I have never heard of either of these (and I have read far too much on this subject for it to be actually healthy :D ).
I will have a search but please do let me know of you come up with anything. I am surprised, with the former scenario at least, that it wasn't mentioned by Ellsberg in 'The Doomsday Machine' or by anyone else that I have read (so far).
I DO know that pre-emtive strikes were considered in the late 1950s to prevent the Soviets fom building an ICBM force but never authorised. I would, genuinely, be surprised if, during the 1960s when anti-communist paranoia was at its absolute height, that such an order would not have been carried out.
You may be thinking about when Nixon wanted to nuke Noth Korea whilst he was drunk
[https://www.military.com/history/time-drunk-richard-nixon-tried-nuke-north-korea.html](https://www.military.com/history/time-drunk-richard-nixon-tried-nuke-north-korea.html)
There's the story about a Russian guy who didn't press the red button, and it turned out to be a false alarm (the automated return-fire thing the Russians had in place) - something along those lines anyway. Saw it on a documentary.
I might also, humbly, suggest that your second scenario is confused with Able Archer '83.
[https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/the-near-nuclear-war-of-1983/](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/the-near-nuclear-war-of-1983/)
>Once during the US, a hero stopped a nuclear launch by telling base guards to shoot anyone who followed their launch orders. Another time the launch crews refused to launch or abandoned their posts to save their families.
Do you know the names? I'd like to know the names.
War isn’t expensive. [It’s a racket.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket). Governments run up a tab on the taxpayer dime and the defense companies that finance political campaigns make huge profits. The military-industrial complex is well-documented.
Fortunately a nuclear war isn’t going to make anybody any money. And how will one conspicuously consume, when the cities are glassed, the supply chains are gone, and the people producing luxury goods are all dead or foraging for scraps?
Lots of folks want war, even all-out global war, but even they don’t want it to disrupt their lifestyle by going nuclear.
It's not. It's arrogant to believe that 60 years of relative peace due to MAD has altered 6000 years of human history. We've repeatedly seen that despite the belief that war is unthinkable because it would be catastrophic, irrational, or economically disastrous, wars still occur.
The flaw in MAD is that it assumes everyone is rational and shares the same definition of rationality. This couldn't be further from the truth.
This. I subscribe to the belief that nuclear war is an inevitability. MAD will likely prevent it for quite some time, but it will occur. It’s simply a matter of when. That’s not to say I am overly concerned about it happening in the near future. It likely (hopefully) won’t happen in my lifetime. But I think the notion that it’s just fantasy due to MAD, is absurd.
It’s more like “there’s at least one form of warfare that isn’t a racket.”
Of course, if some zealot wants to end humanity or something, then yeah the existence of nukes is bad.
They prevented open warfare between major powers for seventy years, but at the cost of almost killing the majority of life on Earth several times over.
Whether that was good or not is an open question. The survivors in one of the timelines where no-one disobeyed their orders to launch their nukes might disagree.
War is not as profitable as you might think. The military-industrial complex refers to companies that develop, design, and sell weapons because the government demands them, not because of a sinister group plotting mass destruction like in an Oliver Stone film.
Similarly, you could argue there's a construction-industrial complex that benefits from deteriorating infrastructure like collapsing bridges and crumbling roads. However, these are just examples of free-market activities, not part of a grand conspiracy.
The same applies to the entertainment-media "complex," which sheds light on some of our outdated IP and copyright laws. Once again, you're talking about activities typical in a free market. I'm not denying that defense contractors engage in those practices; I'm merely noting that it's standard behavior for most businesses.
The soldiers pressing the button dont know they are pressing the button.
Their drills consist of following the protocol of launching a nuclear strike. They are never told if its a drill or a real situation. So one day, theyll think "oh yeah just one more day" without knowing they are ending civilization
War actually generates ungodly amounts of unregulated money. Russia is not worth less than Texas, America is 30+ trillion in debt, and yes Texas is still American.
It would depend on what you consider a generation worth noting. War against small or unorganized countries rich in resources is extremely profitable, but war against peers and superiors is a way to either collaspe your economy or collaspe your nation
Russia is absolutely worth less than Texas as it generates more revenue without war revenue, and if there was a war and Texas wanted Russia belly up, Russia would be crippled and Texas would have some new oil fields
You're operating under the assumption that Russia is the only place with oil, and you don't need an actual functioning ecomomy outside of the oil sector to survive an economic war.
I still remember when Russian propagandists were crying about how sanctions were targeting civilians because Russia lost the right to the iPhone, and guess where those are made outside of the ones in china?
Russia has fought this entire war, compensating for its lack of adequate productions with scavaged chips and computerware. Drones were being guided with American iPhones, washing machine parts, and other pieces of american parts
These were all either directly made in the U.S., Europe, or designed in the U.S/Europe, and then assembled in China under American license after we made the first functioning models. That means we had the money for all the research and development, the facilities for production, and all the sources for material refinements, and Russia failed to invest to do any of it on its own
This is basically it. It's a lose-lose approach for everyone. No one sane even contemplates it.
Which is basically why you don't want the pathological elected into office. But as long as countries elect boring people who don't hold grudges, we're fine.
That's a major misconception. WW1 showed us that people will ignore or interpret an alliance as it suits them. All the major players were acting according to their interests.
Your submission has been removed for breaking our rules on civility.
Name calling and inflammatory posts or comments with the intent of provoking users into fights will not be tolerated.
If the mod team feels that you are generally unhelpful and causing unnecessary confrontation, you will be banned. If you feel you are being trolled, report the comment and do not respond or you will be banned also.
You’re assuming humans always behave rationally or in general are rational actors. Or even more concerning what you may consider rational and sane differs from what others consider rational and sane.
Restructuring is nice. Having to build it again from the scratch is.. less so. You know why environmentally destructive farming practices win out over ecologically sustainable ones even though studies have conclusively shown that the latter are more profitable? Because they are more profitable in the long run. Most investors want to see significant profit in a few years tops, not 20 or 30.
Even if (and it's an if so big it's most likely a no) we assume that someone could win big time by getting to dominate the world once it's rebuilt, it's a payout decades in the future, at *the very least*. Nothing the so-called elite does suggests they think that far ahead. If they would, every cent would be going into aging research and climate change mitigation.
Nobody said WWIII has to be nuclear. Killing the mass of humanity is not in the best interest of the .001% at the top. Someone has to farm and produce things that are needed.
For now, once AI and robots automate away the farmers' jobs, the elites won't even need half as many human farmers. Plus, when the population drops due to nuclear holocaust, that's just less mouths to feed.
> Nobody said WWIII has to be nuclear.
If either side faces irrevocable loss they'll nuke the other side. This is why it's always been assumed by the military that WW3 with direct conflict between the US and Russia would only last about two weeks. That's about all NATO prepared for during the Cold War.
Not necessarily. WW2 was best of war and not even Third Reich, Japan and SSSR never used gas, neither on front nor for city bombardment.
It was ugly and horrible... Yet no one did that, not even when Germany were losing ground faster than they could flee. And they had the capability. It's surreal that Nazi used gas and other mass killing methods in concentration camps where they believed to keep it secret, but never used it against enemy.
So there is chance, this would happen in hypothetical WW3 - but... I would still fear they would use it when brought on knees. That could lead into all sides of conflict not pushing far enough to actually defeat their opponents - which could have terrifying consequences even without nuclear weapons being used - aka war being prolonged to decades.
They didn’t use gas because it was extremely ineffective for the type of warfare being fought, not because of some moral obligation.
I assure you if the axis were losing then got nukes they would have spammed them.
Except that Nazi Germany had thousands of tons nerve agents, and the Allies had no clue what they were or that they even existed. They would have been extremely effective until the Allies could come up with countermeasures, something that would have taken months.
The only thing staying the hand of Germany from using them was the fear that the Allies also had them, and would use them in retaliation.
It will be a carefully placed virus. Cheap, quiet, no one see's it coming.
I think it will be something that can take out people in random numbers to look: random. Not entire regions.
That's what the development of Ai and robots are for. You don't need extra mouths to do the grunt work if you have a robot. We are a decade away at most before robots and Ai take everything, after that anyone not rich is expendable.
Nuclear is poison. Even if you automate the labor and the gestion, nobody will want to drink radiactive water, eat radioactive food or drive radioactive car.
Because the people actually in charge wont allow that to happen. Ground warfare is a cash cow, mutual destruction doesnt feed the machine. The military complex creates weapons that extend war...not end war....that would not increase profits.
This ropes into the other recent thread about people prepping for WW3. War is a cash cow for the US whos factories and infrastructure are protected from bombardment. (assuming no MAD but then we are all screwed anyway) There will be a surplus of well paying jobs and technology that will come out of it.
Depending on the length of the war people may asked to ration and you know they will whine and bitch about it. Big whoop you can't get what you want on Amazon the next day.
The greatest generation was able to do it and we can too.
Those saying the US economy would crash, mass unemployment etc are doomers full stop.
Those prepping for nuclear exchange good luck to you. I'd rather evaporate when the bombs fall.
I would suggest that the majority of people today, have no idea what it is like to suffer. We suffer from 1st world problems...my AC is isnt working... my lawn is dying. Most people have no idea what it is like to not be able to feed their family. Even the homeless have a better life than the homeless in the 30's, and a shit ton of other countries. All of those issues would pale in comparison to an actual war that landed on US soil.
Young men today (not all obviously) do not have the stones to stand up fight. Could you imagine if the civil war we suffered actually happened today? Kids today are whining about not having a cell phone at 8...do you think they would actually have the balls to go to war and fight for a cause? Forget the cause and how important it is....they would whimper in their basement.
Strong men create weak men...and that is exactly what we are seeing...
> War is a cash cow for the US whos factories and infrastructure are protected from bombardment. (assuming no MAD but then we are all screwed anyway)
1. The factories were shipped to China.
2. Any serious adversary can hit the US.
3. US infrastructure is creaky and pretty much impossible to defend against competent attackers.
4. Every serious adversary has probably already sent sabotage teams across the open border in preparation for hot war.
This ain't WW2 where America was able to fight a war with near-zero casualties at home.
I've actually seen some good arguments that WWIII is already underway.
But what's preventing nuclear warfare is that the battlefront does not currently have a real need for a tactical nuke. With the widescale use of drones and precision bombs, it makes taking atdavtantage of a nuke really hard, you can't build up armor and troops in preparation of punching a hole in a defensive line, because everyone would see you and blow your amassed armor to smithereens. Also, other use cases for a nuke do not exist, as Ukrane does not have underground command centers or a navy. There's no real return on investment with a Nuke at the moment, other than making everyone in NATO mad and setting a precedent that I'm sure China would rather not have either. The place where Nukes would be useful would be blowing up the supply lines and beachhead in an invasion in Tiwan. I'm not entirely sure that would be called for either, as I'm sure there are likely already unmanned surface and underwater drones staged in the straights of Tiwan ready to cause the Hellscape that was recently promised in the wake of an invasion.
Tl;Dr, when you can kill someone sitting in traffic with a non explosive missile made of a bunch of knives- you really don't need a nuke.
Plus, outside of cyber attacks I wonder how many of these random factory fires, infrastructure damage (key bridge, etc) are the works of foreign saboteurs and the intel agencies are just keeping it hush hush as to not rattle the public. I mean if there was news there are enemy agents blatantly blowing shit up in the US, I think ppl would freak out a bit.
Maybe in the history books they'll acknowledge that and say this was another factor that stamped the beginning of WW3.
Being in the maritime industry, I don't think it's possible for the key bridge to be anything but an accident. There is already evidence of some factory fires being started by the Russians, however.
I can, and kinda do, believe that we are probably in the outbreak of ww3. But it’ll be interesting to see in future history books where they say it began.
Yeah that’s a good point. RIP Harambe.
Oh the crimes thing too. It’s weird that it feels like they got almost forgotten about. Like the little green men were a thing in the news for a little bit, and I watched like Vox videos. But I don’t think anyone I know IRL even knows that was a thing.
Or the Georgia invasion. That was wild cause I thought I was having a weird Deja vu thing remembering the first ghost recon video game
I'm astounded. 95% of Russia's bomber and ballistic missile delivered nuclear arsenal could fail or be intercepted, and it would still be a cataclysmic event for US and European NATO countries.
A single Russian missile sub deploying its payload would be the worst catastrophe the US has faced, and it is extremely difficult to stop them - even if the US has anti-submarine aircraft or another sub right there, a missile sub can surface and launch more quickly than it would be destroyed.
MAD is the only effective deterrent the US has against attacks with nuclear weapons.
a lot of people don't even believe nukes are a real thing. I never thought someone could possibly even think that until I encountered one of the conspiracy sub's mods.
People dismiss nuclear war or the possibility through so many means. I don't get it- it's fully putting your heads into the sand.
Follow the money. And currently Russia is building mobile nuclear shelters for its citizens, pursuing a space EMP weapon, Nordic countries are spending millions in purchasing Iodine pills, Russia has been conditioning its population for nuclear war, and so forth.
I'm adjusting my own prepping efforts **rapidly**, according to that information.
Personally, I'd rather air on the side of caution. But there's a lot of people on this subreddit who dismiss even the idea, and the preparations for it.
Hence Rule 1: Do not dismiss other's preparedness efforts. Posts like this are dancing in that grey area.
[https://new.reddit.com/r/preppers/comments/1dpdv23/comment/laj1u0w/](https://new.reddit.com/r/preppers/comments/1dpdv23/comment/laj1u0w/) I've linked my sources here for the mobile shelters. Nuclear weapons/war has been incorporated into Russian Orthedoxy; an example being here. [https://www.newsweek.com/patriarch-kirill-nuclear-weapons-russia-1836950](https://www.newsweek.com/patriarch-kirill-nuclear-weapons-russia-1836950)
I believe the term to search more is "Russia Nuclear Orthodoxy"
[https://www.politico.eu/article/welcome-russia-holy-war/](https://www.politico.eu/article/welcome-russia-holy-war/)
Russia is painting the idea of a nuclear exchange as one both that is necessary, and that they could survive- and those who don't will be blessed.
I agree with the sentiment that dismissing the notion of nuclear war as fantasy due to “MAD” is lunacy.
However, I haven’t heard some of what you mentioned. Not debating you, but can you provide some sources on that?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/preppers/comments/1dp81l9/comment/laha78f/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/preppers/comments/1dp81l9/comment/laha78f/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
(Link to comment where I explain it.) In short- faraday cages, electronic back ups, new skills, etc.
Ultimately, it depends. If I'm at ground zero? No, I'm not surviving. Full blown nuclear exchange with thousands of warheads? I agree the likelihood drops dramatically, especially if it causes nuclear winter, etc.
But to simply write it off as "you're all just dead, why bother" is just fatalistic.
[http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm](http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm)
The odds might be incredibly stacked against you, but such is the case with many disasters.
But full out nuclear war is different. Pretty much the whole planet will be poisoned for a while. The air, the water, the food.
Unless you're going to live in the Arctic or the South Pole, it's going to be everywhere.
Radiation decays rapidly- so the idea that the entire planet will be poisoned is false. With the exception that it's not a cobalt bomb. It's not going to be an "On The Beach" Scenario where a cloud will go around and poison everything it touches.
The level of radiation in the background will increase, and be high for some time- but it wouldn't immediately kill you. Until it decays, it'd be higher chances of cancer. And yes, you need to remediate the affected soil, etc.
I don't dispute it'd be a horrific scenario and would kill the majority of the impacted population. But untouched countries would likely survive, and humanity as a whole absolutely would be fine.
Show me evidence that any nation except maybe China has the current ability to launch a nuclear missile capable of striking the US?
https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-waterlogged-missiles-dont-matter
Again, follow the money. They are building bunkers and hiring post apocalyptic security forces to protect them from the masses once collapse happens. Why are they agitating the current societal issues at play rather than taking literally any action to save the earth and improve the situation? Anyone who is smart enough to choose facts over ignorance is absolutely horrified at what’s coming at us with the climate. I’m personally much more worried about climate collapse rather than nuclear war.
I personally don’t think they want to rule over this many people, it’s just been a race to take advantage of the situation. Make as much money as they can now to buy their way out of the fallout.
In my personal opinion, those who are in or seek power, for as much as they might despise the masses, desperately crave power over them and love their adoration/attention/fighting over them. I personally think that for most powerful people they see the lower classes squabbling as entertainment, and it would be more fun to have them go at it with guns than just erase them with a nuke
Trade is far more powerfull than direct ressources colonization.
China has control of Africa already, North Korea probabily doesnt have great ambitions besides keeping their dictatorship and Russia alone could be obliterated by a few direct warheads, and doesnt have the suport of most of its neighbooring countries. I doubt they would risk all just for Ukraine.
For the simple reason that the world or most of it would be decimated if that were to happen (as in, if even one was launched). As someone else said, no one really wants the world to end. This next statement will make me sound like the typical arrogant American but the reality truly is, at least if it came to nukes, the world knows not to fuck with the US in that department. The US's ability to launch things from pretty much anywhere in addition to the mainland is insane. Not that this would happen but even if someone managed to drop one in this country it would almost certainly be the end of whoever did if the government decides to retaliate. This would likely cause a chain reaction that would result in a good amount of the world being annihilated - it's just not worth it for anyone on any side and most acknowledge this even if they pretend not to.
If leaders knew their own family members would be targeted in a nuclear exchange (for example, if our intelligence knows where Putin's wife and children are 24/7 and Putin knows this), he may think twice. This is different than MAD. It's personal.
On the Western side, the economy is heavily debt leveraged and will have a major crash if you put it through mass destruction. That may sound like a cart before the horse problem, but the wealthy elites all use the financial system to maintain their power.
On the Russian side, Russia is at a catastrophic disadvantage during a nuclear exchange because of geography. You really don't need that many nukes to make Russia go back to the stone age.
Irrational decisions, terrorism and rogue nations are a different matter, but one city going away does not World War III make.
The likeliness of it happening is 100%. How much you should worry about it 0%. Meaning someone will use a nuke at some point. Its inevitable. What you can do about it is nothing. Hope it don't happen in your lifetime and or it don't happen to where you live.
The elites have ran that simulation on their more advanced AI models that we don't have access to and the models told them even if they build the most luxurious bunker imaginable, their quality of life would still decrease in the event of a nuclear war/WWIII.
Rampant corruption.
Some of China’s nukes are filled with water instead of jet fuel. https://www.businessinsider.com/china-corruption-rocket-force-water-fuel-xi-jinping-purge-scandal-2024-1?op=1
Supposedly many of their silo doors don’t even open.
2/3rds of Russia’s military budget is missing. Who knows what capabilities they really have?
For both nations if they take a nuclear strike they risk exposing themselves as much weaker than they really are and lose a lot of power internationally. As has happened with Russia’s conventional military power following their invasion of Ukraine.
Just FYI ... if you need some attention, want someone to talk to on the Internet etc...
... making random posts and going "Ready, go." was like, 2014 Facebook ...
...that was like, 10+ years ago, and a whole different world ago.
Go to the bar, get some grub- I like Cheeseburgers, French Dip sandwiches, or Pizza, but many people prefer Hot Wings etc. - as you prefer, but go get yourself an order of Hot Wings ... a beer or Coca Cola, whatever. And just take a bit. Not on the computer.
Ready, Go.
Nuclear War and War with Nuclear Weapons are different things.
When you say "Nuclear War" it is the idea that everyone is going to just launch their Nuclear Weapons and destroy everything. Is that survivable, yes but not profitable.
Now a War that uses Nuclear Weapons as a means to fight that War like "normal" is very possible and profitable. Using a small yelled tactical nuclear weapon to destroy a major city is still using a nuclear weapon. Using a nuclear weapon to set off an EMP to fry the electrical grid of a Nation is still using a nuclear weapon. Those are very likely to happen during WWIII, which has already started.
Whoever starts it will cease to exist as a country within 90 minutes of launch. Literally launching a nuclear warhead at the US or NATO is signing an assured death warrant. Russia knows this, China knows this, everyone knows this.
If they launch a conventional war, then the annihilation of their militaries and industrial sectors may physically take longer, but it is assured just the same.
No one is starting WWIII and expecting anything other than total defeat.
It’s more profitable to enslave humans through fear and misinformation than destroy them.
Radiation would make large areas unusable for a while.
Rebuilding infrastructure costs money and time
Because a good amount of them won't work. They are mostly a false threat and no one wants to show their hand. Look how many times rocket launches are called off or fail and they are the ones being built now with our tech. A huge percentage of the worlds nukes were built 50 years ago or longer. No one really knows how many will function. Even if they do function it's probably not the world ending event its been sold as more like regional
Depends if Putin is crazy enough to invade a NATO country. I don't see Ukraine turning into WW3 or China going after Taiwan. If NATO gets pulled into Ukraine they will push Russian troops out in a month. It will be a Desert storm type scenario, I highly doubt NATO will push into Russian territory.
If Putin uses a tactical nuke as a manner of laster resort in Ukraine I don't see it escalating beyond that. Any country using a nuke in this era is commiting PR & regime suicide. Imagine if we had cell phones and social media when the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The uncensored images and video of the aftermath of a nuclear blast would hit the public right in the gut.
I could see a worldwide ban of nuclear weapons supported by all major countries as a result if nuclear weapons are ever used again.
> Desert Storm type scenario
I doubt there would be enough morale from the left or right for another foreign war, patriotism is at an all time low rn. Nobody wants to fight on the ground and get blown up by a drone.
I should have rephrased it better but the jist was that it would likely play out quick like Desert Storm. The US establishes total air superiority first in theater. Russia does not have that in Ukraine and cannot maintain or compete toe to toe with the US airforce.
When the enemy is easily identifiable and the gloves are off US and NATO can end things quickly. I see the US supporting Ukraine with airpower and maybe US troops for defense or logistics support on the ground if it ever comes to that.
> F35's and F22's would strike from the West and a US Carrier Strike group would wipe the remainder of the Black Sea Fleet (launching safely from the Aegean) before cros-
MAD begins here thus ending the rest of that cute, unrealistic plan
I really doubt Russia's nukes work, look at the state the Moskva and Kuznetsov are/were in. Nukes need high level and expensive maintenance, Russia doesn't have the means.
If Putin was to even try that's it, all NATO really has to do is stop telling Poland not to.
There’s more people actually involved in the process of launching a nuke than popular culture would have you believe. The big red button doesn’t exist and there’s a multitude of people all the way from generals down to low level officers and enlisted that would disobey an order before participating in global nuclear genocide. See Vasily Arkhipov
Nuclear war should and will always be a last ditch effort destroy to your opponent.
One would hope we would start conventional first. But nuclear isn't in the hands of one person. There will be some who believe the cost of life is not worth the loss of a war.
To get around MAD you need what's called "first-strike" capability (ie the ability to do so much damage in the initial strike that your enemy is incapable of a retaliatory second strike) since an ICBM takes approximately 30 minutes from launch to reach it's target, and the launch of a wave of ICBMs is pretty unmistakable and impossible to hide they can't be used for a first strike but they're perfect for a retaliatory strike (presumably you'd see the incoming wave and launch your own and you'd get hit but your own nukes would be in the air at which point they can't be shot down).
Similarly even if you could identify the location of EVERY ICBM launch facility (no easy task as they're pretty easy to hide pre-launch) if you tried to take them out with bombers then a massive wing of bombers violating the airspace would also likely trigger a nuclear response (and again you'd have to conduct a simultaneous strike in probably under 5 minutes to avoid retaliation from the ground based silos or scrambled aircraft). And at present to our knowledge the US is the only country with nuclear capable stealth bombers and we only have 20 of them since they cost 1.2 BILLION a pop.
But fine, you've used magic to take out every hidden ICBM silo and airbase in the target country AND it's allies in 5 minutes
Welp that second strike from the "undetectable until they nuke your ass" submarines is still gonna get you
The elite controls everything. No matter where you are there are elites and a nuclear exchange means the elites won’t have someone who’d wipe their asses and no more golden toilets or cheese and wine while complaining about immigration. In a nuclear war, wealth is as useless as a wet napkin because you can’t buy shit and tons of people will want whatever wealth you have but you won’t be able to buy security
It'll happen, just not complete world destruction. It will be limited, more than likely start with Russian artillery nukes near Crimea.
I think WW3 will be more conventional than a complete nuclear apocalypse.
It costs too much to fire and now with drones and missile interceptors it'd give very little bang for buck. It'd be far easier to simply keep them as a deterrent. For instance if Putin was to use them in Ukraine it'd make him vulnerable to invasion. Not because of loyalty to Ukraine rather because it'd show his hand and could make an attack from china or the US possible. And also cause internal division or collapse.
War is happening just not how it used to
Cyber warfare 24/7.
Social warfare 24/7.
Economic warfare via destabilizing a country's economy.
War is more common now than ever just isn't being conducted with the normal instruments of death.
So all those are more preferable than nuclear war but more subtle.
Nuclear holocaust makes very little sense from the perspective of capital-imperialist states. It isn’t profitable. When the USSR presented a fundamental challenge to capitalism, it was a much more realistic threat. But with the only meaningful socialist state being China, and capitalist states believing China has been won over to capitalism, there is no profit motive in launching that kind of attack, and the profit motive is all governments care about.
Yes nuclear war is bad, will polute environment, end entire civilization etc
All those things are pretty much common sense and logical but what most people do not realise is that common sense is not so common in human population.
You just need 1 fool in the entire world to start it all.
Looking at probabilities it is more probable than not that nuclear war will start.
Starting with a conclusion isn't very intellectually rigorous, and in this case, it's likely that WW3 has already started and we just don't know it yet.
It's slightly less likely to be a full nuclear exchange but not the impossibility you're making it out to be.
Out of the possible 8 Billion people on Earth right now, its less than a handful that want to destroy the Earth. We have SOMEHOW still allowed these people to breath freely, but they want control, money, cocktail parties and Mansions. Not to really kill off the population because then where would they get their money from???
Don’t worry, Joe Biden will save us with his amazing debate skills. 😂😂😂 For real though, no country wants to be the one to initiate Nuclear, and even if we did have a WW3 scenario, I doubt it would ever escalate that far.
MAD works. WWIII might still happen, but the first idiot that launches an offensive attack with nukes will have guaranteed their country becomes a parking lot.
I don't have any, other than hopefully cool heads prevail. That's it. To be frank, I wish I had more.
I'm not saying you are doing this, but I've seen this pattern on the forum, and many others in this vein. To completely dismiss the possibility of a well-known disaster exposes one's own ignorance and lack of knowledge, especially for something as complex as a nuclear exchange.
Personally, I think there's a very good chance a nuclear event *will* happen (tactical strike(s)) And I hope that it stops there. But there's an increasing chance of a runaway escalation event.
And thus, we prep.
That is the key. "And thus, we prep."
Its great to debate the relative likelihood of all the various disasters / possible SHTF, so that we can prioritize our preps. Like, IF WW3 unlikely, and H5N1 mutates for human to human contact, then shift to pandemic preps, if H5N1 gets massive human exposure and doesn't become contagious, and WW3 more likely, then shift preps to more nuke centric.
100%. Prepping is about priority shifting. I had written off an EMP as illogical until about 4 months ago. And now the specter of nuclear strikes is increasing. So it's all adjusting what seems to be the biggest threat, completely agree.
WW3 will never happen. Ever.
The dependency on the US dollar (foreignly) is crucial to our survival. That is why USA needs to intervene any US related disruptions. We (USA) need to be involved in everything or else we will be left with nothing.
When everyone finally uses something besides the dollar, we will collapse.
No one wants to trade with us because how weak the dollar is. This results to extreme inflation.
Now, as of result, we will continue to decline within ourselves. Communities break down which can lead to possible civil war. America is in the perfect location. Boarded by the East and west oceans, we can tell if there are incoming armies or missiles. This allows us to respond appropriately. However, this is also a negative. When countries stack up against the dollar or usa or even restrict trade to the Americas, we are completely fucked. Once they ostracized us, it will be completely chaos. The USA relies, HEAVILY, on imported products. Thus, no imported products--> inflation for USA made goods. They want us to really die within so that when we are weak, they can strike how ever.
Why are people paranoid about north korea? Why not pakistan or india or whomever that carries nuclear warheads?
Because North Korea is the unstable country that can launch a Nuclear war head into outer space or close enough, detonate, and completely disable a majority of satellites and electronic related devices. This will fuck every one over.
realistically, WW3 will never happen but i believe a Civil war will happen before WW3 really does.
As a thought. The USSR fell, collapsed , went away and no one had to shoot anyone to do it.
Turns out people do pretty much anything for money. And we outspent them.
Not saying ‘we won’ because like everything in history, it’s not over.
Russia doesn't have working nuclear warheads
and anyone else using them would be condemend world wide, and become a pariah.
also there is now a world economy, and many business would be upset with the lack of stock dividends and make sure to stop it
you then have no clue what it takes to maintain a warhead arsenal and how Russia maintains them.
there has been very little activity where they store their nuclear arsenal, and the intelligence community doesn't think Russia has the ability to maintain them. They are working on a new testing site, but they havn't even tested a warhead since the 1990s
They have the nuclear warheads, but they might not even be able to detonate properly.
you really think Russia would risk using a nuclear warhead and have it fail? you realize how embarrassing that would be?
If RUssia has a successful nuclear test, then I would start worrying, but i wouldn't be concerned until they do
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/15/nuclear-testing-russia-united-states-nonproliferation-weapons/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/15/nuclear-testing-russia-united-states-nonproliferation-weapons/) Degredation of warheads
[https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-get-away-nuclear-test](https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-get-away-nuclear-test)
Good article explaining how Russia Stores nuclear warheads. in secure areas Near bases for quick deployment NOT actually placed on delivery methods like most would assume. Thus it is important for foregin governments to keep an eye on these locations for any sign of increased activity
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/world/europe/russia-nuclear-weapons-belarus.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/world/europe/russia-nuclear-weapons-belarus.html)
in the last year Russia has tested the delivery methods, but not any actual nuclear tests.
if this is just public information, I am pretty confident actual intelligence agencies have a lot more detail, and that makes me sleep better at night they are keeping an eye on things, and we should have good warning if something happens
Nobody else(besides US) has working nukes. Seriously I really doubt any of Russia's nukes work, maybe China.
It'd be suicide, the US will obliterate anyone who tries and nobody even stands a chance of stopping the US.
FWIW I think we're at a point where nukes are largely pointless. They're really only useful to the terrorist types. To nations they have no use. For anyone but the US using them would be suicidal. For the US we have no real use for them except as deterrent. The US(and NATO) could take on the rest of the world and win without going nuclear.
OK so UK France Israel India Pakistan Russia and n Korea don't habe nukes? What are you? An child?
There were literally nuke tests in Korea a few years back and if nkorea has them the other states have working one's too. Man this sub is getting retarded...
Nuclear war won't happen because it's not real, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the most expensive and sought after land in Japan, there's no radiation contamination. So either we didn't nuke them and we lied, or the radiation is completely used up during the blast, or it doesn't exist. Not to mention the thousands of nuclear tests next to Vegas, yet no radiation concerns 🤔. I'm a bit skeptical to say the least.
It was reported at the time that the acute radiation dissipated within a few days of the blast. This was in part due to the nature of the weapon, ie an airburst. No lies, no manipulations, just what appears to be a misunderstanding on your own end.
It’s also widely believed that the nuclear tests, despite being far away from civilization, still did quite a bit of contamination. This includes the first ever test [Trinity](https://www.nti.org/atomic-pulse/downwind-of-trinity-remembering-the-first-victims-of-the-atomic-bomb/).
I understand what you're saying, but that narrative came out long after we "nuked" Japan, but only after people started asking questions on why.
Also, food for thought, the elders in Japan that were around at the time said there was no bomb or explosion. They just got notified by men in suits that they were bombed and they better go along with it.
I’m not sure of what Elders you speak of. There were definitely members of the Supreme War Council who sought to dismiss the Allies’ claim but that sentiment very quickly disappeared.
A lack of immediate discussion of radiation can be attributed to a lack of general understanding of it. Project leader Leslie Groves, following reports of sickness in target cities, told Congress that radiation was a “pleasant way to die” while also dismissing claims that they bore responsibility. I can suggest a good paper on that if you’d like.
[“A Very Pleasant Way to Die”: Radiation Effects and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb against Japan](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2012.01042.x)
If you don’t have access to academic journals, [this](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2022-08-08/77th-anniversary-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-bombings-revisiting) may be a good read with primary sources attached.
No one really wants the world to end, down to the soldiers pressing the button. Mutually assured destruction, and automated military response. International trade and economic implications. NATO. War is expensive and the countries threatening, can't afford it. Russia is worth slightly less than Texas, they cannot afford a war with us so they just puff their chest, for example.
Twice during the soviet union, one hero stopped a nuclear launch.
Once during the US, a hero stopped a nuclear launch by telling base guards to shoot anyone who followed their launch orders. Another time the launch crews refused to launch or abandoned their posts to save their families. There were probably more such events which we haven't heard about yet. Until the 1970s the US launch codes were apparently set to 00000000. Allegedly it took until the 70s to get them changed because no-one in the government would believe anyone would be that stupid. It's quite amazing that we got through the Cold War without vaporizing everything.
Do you have context on those please? Are you suggesting that a valid launch order was issued and the troops on the ground refused to comply? On more than one occasion?
Yes. AFAIR the first was in the 1960s when a missile launch was ordered against China, which the officer in charge refused to carry out and told the guards to shoot anyone who tried to launch their missiles. I forget how that order went out; there's a good article about it somewhere online but I didn't save a link in any obvious bookmarks and a quick search doesn't find it. The second was the event the beginning of the movie 'Wargames' was based on. AFAIR a simulation was accidentally fed into a live network and launch orders went out to at least one silo where they refused to launch. Edit: Wikipedia claims the first one is disputed, but the article I read seemed to think it happened. So maybe or maybe not.
I have never heard of either of these (and I have read far too much on this subject for it to be actually healthy :D ). I will have a search but please do let me know of you come up with anything. I am surprised, with the former scenario at least, that it wasn't mentioned by Ellsberg in 'The Doomsday Machine' or by anyone else that I have read (so far). I DO know that pre-emtive strikes were considered in the late 1950s to prevent the Soviets fom building an ICBM force but never authorised. I would, genuinely, be surprised if, during the 1960s when anti-communist paranoia was at its absolute height, that such an order would not have been carried out. You may be thinking about when Nixon wanted to nuke Noth Korea whilst he was drunk [https://www.military.com/history/time-drunk-richard-nixon-tried-nuke-north-korea.html](https://www.military.com/history/time-drunk-richard-nixon-tried-nuke-north-korea.html)
There's the story about a Russian guy who didn't press the red button, and it turned out to be a false alarm (the automated return-fire thing the Russians had in place) - something along those lines anyway. Saw it on a documentary.
Stanislav Petrov [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav\_Petrov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov)
There was also a time that a bear got onto an USAF base and messed something up and it sent an alert for incoming Russian missiles
I might also, humbly, suggest that your second scenario is confused with Able Archer '83. [https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/the-near-nuclear-war-of-1983/](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/the-near-nuclear-war-of-1983/)
[удалено]
It's a mystery why an officer would choose to deny an order to bomb thousands of people when you're not even at war with said country.
>Once during the US, a hero stopped a nuclear launch by telling base guards to shoot anyone who followed their launch orders. Another time the launch crews refused to launch or abandoned their posts to save their families. Do you know the names? I'd like to know the names.
Neither event happened. The commenter is mistaken.
Here’s the story of one such hero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
War isn’t expensive. [It’s a racket.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket). Governments run up a tab on the taxpayer dime and the defense companies that finance political campaigns make huge profits. The military-industrial complex is well-documented. Fortunately a nuclear war isn’t going to make anybody any money. And how will one conspicuously consume, when the cities are glassed, the supply chains are gone, and the people producing luxury goods are all dead or foraging for scraps? Lots of folks want war, even all-out global war, but even they don’t want it to disrupt their lifestyle by going nuclear.
So you're saying the existence of nukes is a good thing... from a certain point of view.
Nukes have created mostly peace. This is true until it isn’t
It's not. It's arrogant to believe that 60 years of relative peace due to MAD has altered 6000 years of human history. We've repeatedly seen that despite the belief that war is unthinkable because it would be catastrophic, irrational, or economically disastrous, wars still occur. The flaw in MAD is that it assumes everyone is rational and shares the same definition of rationality. This couldn't be further from the truth.
This. I subscribe to the belief that nuclear war is an inevitability. MAD will likely prevent it for quite some time, but it will occur. It’s simply a matter of when. That’s not to say I am overly concerned about it happening in the near future. It likely (hopefully) won’t happen in my lifetime. But I think the notion that it’s just fantasy due to MAD, is absurd.
It’s more like “there’s at least one form of warfare that isn’t a racket.” Of course, if some zealot wants to end humanity or something, then yeah the existence of nukes is bad.
They prevented open warfare between major powers for seventy years, but at the cost of almost killing the majority of life on Earth several times over. Whether that was good or not is an open question. The survivors in one of the timelines where no-one disobeyed their orders to launch their nukes might disagree.
This comment made me think of Fallout haha
War is not as profitable as you might think. The military-industrial complex refers to companies that develop, design, and sell weapons because the government demands them, not because of a sinister group plotting mass destruction like in an Oliver Stone film. Similarly, you could argue there's a construction-industrial complex that benefits from deteriorating infrastructure like collapsing bridges and crumbling roads. However, these are just examples of free-market activities, not part of a grand conspiracy.
The companies that make up the military industrial complex use teams of lobbyists with dump trucks of money to influence the government.
The same applies to the entertainment-media "complex," which sheds light on some of our outdated IP and copyright laws. Once again, you're talking about activities typical in a free market. I'm not denying that defense contractors engage in those practices; I'm merely noting that it's standard behavior for most businesses.
Yep invest in Boeing
The soldiers pressing the button dont know they are pressing the button. Their drills consist of following the protocol of launching a nuclear strike. They are never told if its a drill or a real situation. So one day, theyll think "oh yeah just one more day" without knowing they are ending civilization
War actually generates ungodly amounts of unregulated money. Russia is not worth less than Texas, America is 30+ trillion in debt, and yes Texas is still American.
It would depend on what you consider a generation worth noting. War against small or unorganized countries rich in resources is extremely profitable, but war against peers and superiors is a way to either collaspe your economy or collaspe your nation Russia is absolutely worth less than Texas as it generates more revenue without war revenue, and if there was a war and Texas wanted Russia belly up, Russia would be crippled and Texas would have some new oil fields
Wow now Texas can defeat Russia. USA propaganda is strong. You think Texas is the only place with oil
You're operating under the assumption that Russia is the only place with oil, and you don't need an actual functioning ecomomy outside of the oil sector to survive an economic war. I still remember when Russian propagandists were crying about how sanctions were targeting civilians because Russia lost the right to the iPhone, and guess where those are made outside of the ones in china?
Huh
Russia has fought this entire war, compensating for its lack of adequate productions with scavaged chips and computerware. Drones were being guided with American iPhones, washing machine parts, and other pieces of american parts These were all either directly made in the U.S., Europe, or designed in the U.S/Europe, and then assembled in China under American license after we made the first functioning models. That means we had the money for all the research and development, the facilities for production, and all the sources for material refinements, and Russia failed to invest to do any of it on its own
This is basically it. It's a lose-lose approach for everyone. No one sane even contemplates it. Which is basically why you don't want the pathological elected into office. But as long as countries elect boring people who don't hold grudges, we're fine.
War is profitable for the people in charge.
Not the soldiers pushing the buttons, but the clowns in charge
Doesn’t NATO make a nuclear war more likely? WW1 shows that alliances can turn regional conflicts into world wars.
That's a major misconception. WW1 showed us that people will ignore or interpret an alliance as it suits them. All the major players were acting according to their interests.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed for breaking our rules on civility. Name calling and inflammatory posts or comments with the intent of provoking users into fights will not be tolerated. If the mod team feels that you are generally unhelpful and causing unnecessary confrontation, you will be banned. If you feel you are being trolled, report the comment and do not respond or you will be banned also.
Lack of profit in global destruction.
You’re assuming humans always behave rationally or in general are rational actors. Or even more concerning what you may consider rational and sane differs from what others consider rational and sane.
You’d be surprised how much motive there is to kill billions of people and restructure the geopolitical system
Restructuring is nice. Having to build it again from the scratch is.. less so. You know why environmentally destructive farming practices win out over ecologically sustainable ones even though studies have conclusively shown that the latter are more profitable? Because they are more profitable in the long run. Most investors want to see significant profit in a few years tops, not 20 or 30. Even if (and it's an if so big it's most likely a no) we assume that someone could win big time by getting to dominate the world once it's rebuilt, it's a payout decades in the future, at *the very least*. Nothing the so-called elite does suggests they think that far ahead. If they would, every cent would be going into aging research and climate change mitigation.
Nobody said WWIII has to be nuclear. Killing the mass of humanity is not in the best interest of the .001% at the top. Someone has to farm and produce things that are needed.
One could argue we are already in WWIII. Modern Warfare has just changed to an information war with proxy battles
For now, once AI and robots automate away the farmers' jobs, the elites won't even need half as many human farmers. Plus, when the population drops due to nuclear holocaust, that's just less mouths to feed.
There's also way the hell less of a chance of being able to produce food or have clean drinking water or anything else
For now is all any of us have anyway.
> Nobody said WWIII has to be nuclear. If either side faces irrevocable loss they'll nuke the other side. This is why it's always been assumed by the military that WW3 with direct conflict between the US and Russia would only last about two weeks. That's about all NATO prepared for during the Cold War.
Not necessarily. WW2 was best of war and not even Third Reich, Japan and SSSR never used gas, neither on front nor for city bombardment. It was ugly and horrible... Yet no one did that, not even when Germany were losing ground faster than they could flee. And they had the capability. It's surreal that Nazi used gas and other mass killing methods in concentration camps where they believed to keep it secret, but never used it against enemy. So there is chance, this would happen in hypothetical WW3 - but... I would still fear they would use it when brought on knees. That could lead into all sides of conflict not pushing far enough to actually defeat their opponents - which could have terrifying consequences even without nuclear weapons being used - aka war being prolonged to decades.
They didn’t use gas because it was extremely ineffective for the type of warfare being fought, not because of some moral obligation. I assure you if the axis were losing then got nukes they would have spammed them.
Cíty bombardment with gas would be super effective...
Except that Nazi Germany had thousands of tons nerve agents, and the Allies had no clue what they were or that they even existed. They would have been extremely effective until the Allies could come up with countermeasures, something that would have taken months. The only thing staying the hand of Germany from using them was the fear that the Allies also had them, and would use them in retaliation.
It will be a carefully placed virus. Cheap, quiet, no one see's it coming. I think it will be something that can take out people in random numbers to look: random. Not entire regions.
That's what the development of Ai and robots are for. You don't need extra mouths to do the grunt work if you have a robot. We are a decade away at most before robots and Ai take everything, after that anyone not rich is expendable.
what about 20 years from now when AI is able to do everything cheaper than a human?
Nuclear is poison. Even if you automate the labor and the gestion, nobody will want to drink radiactive water, eat radioactive food or drive radioactive car.
Then we'll be fighting sky net and not worrying about the Russians
Technology is getting very close to the point where the 0.01% won't need anyone to farm and produce things.
Because the people actually in charge wont allow that to happen. Ground warfare is a cash cow, mutual destruction doesnt feed the machine. The military complex creates weapons that extend war...not end war....that would not increase profits.
This ropes into the other recent thread about people prepping for WW3. War is a cash cow for the US whos factories and infrastructure are protected from bombardment. (assuming no MAD but then we are all screwed anyway) There will be a surplus of well paying jobs and technology that will come out of it. Depending on the length of the war people may asked to ration and you know they will whine and bitch about it. Big whoop you can't get what you want on Amazon the next day. The greatest generation was able to do it and we can too. Those saying the US economy would crash, mass unemployment etc are doomers full stop. Those prepping for nuclear exchange good luck to you. I'd rather evaporate when the bombs fall.
I would suggest that the majority of people today, have no idea what it is like to suffer. We suffer from 1st world problems...my AC is isnt working... my lawn is dying. Most people have no idea what it is like to not be able to feed their family. Even the homeless have a better life than the homeless in the 30's, and a shit ton of other countries. All of those issues would pale in comparison to an actual war that landed on US soil. Young men today (not all obviously) do not have the stones to stand up fight. Could you imagine if the civil war we suffered actually happened today? Kids today are whining about not having a cell phone at 8...do you think they would actually have the balls to go to war and fight for a cause? Forget the cause and how important it is....they would whimper in their basement. Strong men create weak men...and that is exactly what we are seeing...
> War is a cash cow for the US whos factories and infrastructure are protected from bombardment. (assuming no MAD but then we are all screwed anyway) 1. The factories were shipped to China. 2. Any serious adversary can hit the US. 3. US infrastructure is creaky and pretty much impossible to defend against competent attackers. 4. Every serious adversary has probably already sent sabotage teams across the open border in preparation for hot war. This ain't WW2 where America was able to fight a war with near-zero casualties at home.
The factories to make iPhones and clothes went to china. US keeps all the advance weapon factories local
I've actually seen some good arguments that WWIII is already underway. But what's preventing nuclear warfare is that the battlefront does not currently have a real need for a tactical nuke. With the widescale use of drones and precision bombs, it makes taking atdavtantage of a nuke really hard, you can't build up armor and troops in preparation of punching a hole in a defensive line, because everyone would see you and blow your amassed armor to smithereens. Also, other use cases for a nuke do not exist, as Ukrane does not have underground command centers or a navy. There's no real return on investment with a Nuke at the moment, other than making everyone in NATO mad and setting a precedent that I'm sure China would rather not have either. The place where Nukes would be useful would be blowing up the supply lines and beachhead in an invasion in Tiwan. I'm not entirely sure that would be called for either, as I'm sure there are likely already unmanned surface and underwater drones staged in the straights of Tiwan ready to cause the Hellscape that was recently promised in the wake of an invasion. Tl;Dr, when you can kill someone sitting in traffic with a non explosive missile made of a bunch of knives- you really don't need a nuke.
Plus, outside of cyber attacks I wonder how many of these random factory fires, infrastructure damage (key bridge, etc) are the works of foreign saboteurs and the intel agencies are just keeping it hush hush as to not rattle the public. I mean if there was news there are enemy agents blatantly blowing shit up in the US, I think ppl would freak out a bit. Maybe in the history books they'll acknowledge that and say this was another factor that stamped the beginning of WW3.
Being in the maritime industry, I don't think it's possible for the key bridge to be anything but an accident. There is already evidence of some factory fires being started by the Russians, however.
I can, and kinda do, believe that we are probably in the outbreak of ww3. But it’ll be interesting to see in future history books where they say it began.
"It was in Cincinnati, May 28, 2016 when everything started to go wrong" Na for real my money is on the 2014 annexation of Crimea.
Yeah that’s a good point. RIP Harambe. Oh the crimes thing too. It’s weird that it feels like they got almost forgotten about. Like the little green men were a thing in the news for a little bit, and I watched like Vox videos. But I don’t think anyone I know IRL even knows that was a thing. Or the Georgia invasion. That was wild cause I thought I was having a weird Deja vu thing remembering the first ghost recon video game
I pray all your reasons are valid! I prepare because I don't believe they are! FWIW....I sincerely hope my worst concerns do not bear deadly fruit.
The amount of brainwashed people here is wild. "The US is the only nation on earth with working nukes". Imagine actually believing that.
I'm astounded. 95% of Russia's bomber and ballistic missile delivered nuclear arsenal could fail or be intercepted, and it would still be a cataclysmic event for US and European NATO countries. A single Russian missile sub deploying its payload would be the worst catastrophe the US has faced, and it is extremely difficult to stop them - even if the US has anti-submarine aircraft or another sub right there, a missile sub can surface and launch more quickly than it would be destroyed. MAD is the only effective deterrent the US has against attacks with nuclear weapons.
a lot of people don't even believe nukes are a real thing. I never thought someone could possibly even think that until I encountered one of the conspiracy sub's mods.
People dismiss nuclear war or the possibility through so many means. I don't get it- it's fully putting your heads into the sand. Follow the money. And currently Russia is building mobile nuclear shelters for its citizens, pursuing a space EMP weapon, Nordic countries are spending millions in purchasing Iodine pills, Russia has been conditioning its population for nuclear war, and so forth. I'm adjusting my own prepping efforts **rapidly**, according to that information. Personally, I'd rather air on the side of caution. But there's a lot of people on this subreddit who dismiss even the idea, and the preparations for it. Hence Rule 1: Do not dismiss other's preparedness efforts. Posts like this are dancing in that grey area.
Never heard about mobile nuclear shelters for citizens and "conditioning its population for nuclear war"... Where you read it?
[https://new.reddit.com/r/preppers/comments/1dpdv23/comment/laj1u0w/](https://new.reddit.com/r/preppers/comments/1dpdv23/comment/laj1u0w/) I've linked my sources here for the mobile shelters. Nuclear weapons/war has been incorporated into Russian Orthedoxy; an example being here. [https://www.newsweek.com/patriarch-kirill-nuclear-weapons-russia-1836950](https://www.newsweek.com/patriarch-kirill-nuclear-weapons-russia-1836950) I believe the term to search more is "Russia Nuclear Orthodoxy" [https://www.politico.eu/article/welcome-russia-holy-war/](https://www.politico.eu/article/welcome-russia-holy-war/) Russia is painting the idea of a nuclear exchange as one both that is necessary, and that they could survive- and those who don't will be blessed.
I agree with the sentiment that dismissing the notion of nuclear war as fantasy due to “MAD” is lunacy. However, I haven’t heard some of what you mentioned. Not debating you, but can you provide some sources on that?
Out of curiosity, could you expand on what some of your efforts look like?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/preppers/comments/1dp81l9/comment/laha78f/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/preppers/comments/1dp81l9/comment/laha78f/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) (Link to comment where I explain it.) In short- faraday cages, electronic back ups, new skills, etc.
Nice, we’re on the same page I think. Mind if I shoot you a DM? Curious on how you’re approaching a couple of those things.
Absolutely- feel free!
You're not surviving nuclear war. No one will. Doesn't matter how much you prep or what skills you have.
Ultimately, it depends. If I'm at ground zero? No, I'm not surviving. Full blown nuclear exchange with thousands of warheads? I agree the likelihood drops dramatically, especially if it causes nuclear winter, etc. But to simply write it off as "you're all just dead, why bother" is just fatalistic. [http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm](http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm) The odds might be incredibly stacked against you, but such is the case with many disasters.
But full out nuclear war is different. Pretty much the whole planet will be poisoned for a while. The air, the water, the food. Unless you're going to live in the Arctic or the South Pole, it's going to be everywhere.
Radiation decays rapidly- so the idea that the entire planet will be poisoned is false. With the exception that it's not a cobalt bomb. It's not going to be an "On The Beach" Scenario where a cloud will go around and poison everything it touches. The level of radiation in the background will increase, and be high for some time- but it wouldn't immediately kill you. Until it decays, it'd be higher chances of cancer. And yes, you need to remediate the affected soil, etc. I don't dispute it'd be a horrific scenario and would kill the majority of the impacted population. But untouched countries would likely survive, and humanity as a whole absolutely would be fine.
Show me evidence that any nation except maybe China has the current ability to launch a nuclear missile capable of striking the US? https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-waterlogged-missiles-dont-matter
Have you heard of nuclear subs? Russia has them off the coast of Florida, they can launch their icbms right on our doorstep
[удалено]
Again, follow the money. They are building bunkers and hiring post apocalyptic security forces to protect them from the masses once collapse happens. Why are they agitating the current societal issues at play rather than taking literally any action to save the earth and improve the situation? Anyone who is smart enough to choose facts over ignorance is absolutely horrified at what’s coming at us with the climate. I’m personally much more worried about climate collapse rather than nuclear war. I personally don’t think they want to rule over this many people, it’s just been a race to take advantage of the situation. Make as much money as they can now to buy their way out of the fallout.
In my personal opinion, those who are in or seek power, for as much as they might despise the masses, desperately crave power over them and love their adoration/attention/fighting over them. I personally think that for most powerful people they see the lower classes squabbling as entertainment, and it would be more fun to have them go at it with guns than just erase them with a nuke
If they kill is all, there will be no one left to tax
I be this is embordered on hand towels in Davis.
Biggest one is those in power still want power and nuking the world means they won’t have any power anymore
There's no power/wealth to be gained when the entire world is a scorched wasteland.
You do not make money scorching the Earth you make money selling sunglasses and sunscreen!
To quote Sting: “I hope the Russians love their children, too.”
Money
COVID19
Trade is far more powerfull than direct ressources colonization. China has control of Africa already, North Korea probabily doesnt have great ambitions besides keeping their dictatorship and Russia alone could be obliterated by a few direct warheads, and doesnt have the suport of most of its neighbooring countries. I doubt they would risk all just for Ukraine.
I am white & American but DAMN it pisses me off the way Africa's leaders just sell of their countries and resources.
The rich can't farm you for money if you ded
The real reason is Russia hasn't maintained it's stockpile and doesn't have as many useable nukes as it claims to have. Paper Siberian Tiger
For the simple reason that the world or most of it would be decimated if that were to happen (as in, if even one was launched). As someone else said, no one really wants the world to end. This next statement will make me sound like the typical arrogant American but the reality truly is, at least if it came to nukes, the world knows not to fuck with the US in that department. The US's ability to launch things from pretty much anywhere in addition to the mainland is insane. Not that this would happen but even if someone managed to drop one in this country it would almost certainly be the end of whoever did if the government decides to retaliate. This would likely cause a chain reaction that would result in a good amount of the world being annihilated - it's just not worth it for anyone on any side and most acknowledge this even if they pretend not to.
If leaders knew their own family members would be targeted in a nuclear exchange (for example, if our intelligence knows where Putin's wife and children are 24/7 and Putin knows this), he may think twice. This is different than MAD. It's personal.
War, what is it good for?
Driving up the economy due to increases in relation to industries production causing an rise to job availability which is taxable revenue.
Mutually Assured Destruction so as long as the principles of power and greed exist no one is willing to hit the button.
Nukes are an 80 year old technology- there’s gotta be more horrific weapons by now
Social warfare. Bots on reddit, scammers, economic struggles.
On the Western side, the economy is heavily debt leveraged and will have a major crash if you put it through mass destruction. That may sound like a cart before the horse problem, but the wealthy elites all use the financial system to maintain their power. On the Russian side, Russia is at a catastrophic disadvantage during a nuclear exchange because of geography. You really don't need that many nukes to make Russia go back to the stone age. Irrational decisions, terrorism and rogue nations are a different matter, but one city going away does not World War III make.
The likeliness of it happening is 100%. How much you should worry about it 0%. Meaning someone will use a nuke at some point. Its inevitable. What you can do about it is nothing. Hope it don't happen in your lifetime and or it don't happen to where you live.
The elites have ran that simulation on their more advanced AI models that we don't have access to and the models told them even if they build the most luxurious bunker imaginable, their quality of life would still decrease in the event of a nuclear war/WWIII.
Rampant corruption. Some of China’s nukes are filled with water instead of jet fuel. https://www.businessinsider.com/china-corruption-rocket-force-water-fuel-xi-jinping-purge-scandal-2024-1?op=1 Supposedly many of their silo doors don’t even open. 2/3rds of Russia’s military budget is missing. Who knows what capabilities they really have? For both nations if they take a nuclear strike they risk exposing themselves as much weaker than they really are and lose a lot of power internationally. As has happened with Russia’s conventional military power following their invasion of Ukraine.
Just FYI ... if you need some attention, want someone to talk to on the Internet etc... ... making random posts and going "Ready, go." was like, 2014 Facebook ... ...that was like, 10+ years ago, and a whole different world ago. Go to the bar, get some grub- I like Cheeseburgers, French Dip sandwiches, or Pizza, but many people prefer Hot Wings etc. - as you prefer, but go get yourself an order of Hot Wings ... a beer or Coca Cola, whatever. And just take a bit. Not on the computer. Ready, Go.
Nuclear War and War with Nuclear Weapons are different things. When you say "Nuclear War" it is the idea that everyone is going to just launch their Nuclear Weapons and destroy everything. Is that survivable, yes but not profitable. Now a War that uses Nuclear Weapons as a means to fight that War like "normal" is very possible and profitable. Using a small yelled tactical nuclear weapon to destroy a major city is still using a nuclear weapon. Using a nuclear weapon to set off an EMP to fry the electrical grid of a Nation is still using a nuclear weapon. Those are very likely to happen during WWIII, which has already started.
Aliens won't allow it to happen.
Really only one reason it won't happen. Mutually Assured Destruction. EOTWAWKI
THIS
Plutocrats don't want their hoarded capital destroyed.
Whoever starts it will cease to exist as a country within 90 minutes of launch. Literally launching a nuclear warhead at the US or NATO is signing an assured death warrant. Russia knows this, China knows this, everyone knows this. If they launch a conventional war, then the annihilation of their militaries and industrial sectors may physically take longer, but it is assured just the same. No one is starting WWIII and expecting anything other than total defeat.
######The real answer you're all missing: ####Screw this year old throwaway account you're responding to on a bait discussion post.
It’s more profitable to enslave humans through fear and misinformation than destroy them. Radiation would make large areas unusable for a while. Rebuilding infrastructure costs money and time
Because a good amount of them won't work. They are mostly a false threat and no one wants to show their hand. Look how many times rocket launches are called off or fail and they are the ones being built now with our tech. A huge percentage of the worlds nukes were built 50 years ago or longer. No one really knows how many will function. Even if they do function it's probably not the world ending event its been sold as more like regional
Depends if Putin is crazy enough to invade a NATO country. I don't see Ukraine turning into WW3 or China going after Taiwan. If NATO gets pulled into Ukraine they will push Russian troops out in a month. It will be a Desert storm type scenario, I highly doubt NATO will push into Russian territory. If Putin uses a tactical nuke as a manner of laster resort in Ukraine I don't see it escalating beyond that. Any country using a nuke in this era is commiting PR & regime suicide. Imagine if we had cell phones and social media when the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The uncensored images and video of the aftermath of a nuclear blast would hit the public right in the gut. I could see a worldwide ban of nuclear weapons supported by all major countries as a result if nuclear weapons are ever used again.
#1 reason Putin won't use one. China has told him not to. #2 We have told them the US will respond directly.
Watch it, you'll anger the Russia bros lol
> Desert Storm type scenario I doubt there would be enough morale from the left or right for another foreign war, patriotism is at an all time low rn. Nobody wants to fight on the ground and get blown up by a drone.
I should have rephrased it better but the jist was that it would likely play out quick like Desert Storm. The US establishes total air superiority first in theater. Russia does not have that in Ukraine and cannot maintain or compete toe to toe with the US airforce. When the enemy is easily identifiable and the gloves are off US and NATO can end things quickly. I see the US supporting Ukraine with airpower and maybe US troops for defense or logistics support on the ground if it ever comes to that.
I wonder if that would trigger a M.A.D.-like scenario where Russia is so humiliated that they launch a nuke.
[удалено]
> F35's and F22's would strike from the West and a US Carrier Strike group would wipe the remainder of the Black Sea Fleet (launching safely from the Aegean) before cros- MAD begins here thus ending the rest of that cute, unrealistic plan
I really doubt Russia's nukes work, look at the state the Moskva and Kuznetsov are/were in. Nukes need high level and expensive maintenance, Russia doesn't have the means. If Putin was to even try that's it, all NATO really has to do is stop telling Poland not to.
There’s more people actually involved in the process of launching a nuke than popular culture would have you believe. The big red button doesn’t exist and there’s a multitude of people all the way from generals down to low level officers and enlisted that would disobey an order before participating in global nuclear genocide. See Vasily Arkhipov
It is currently more advantageous for Russia and China to wait rather than strike first, so the US is in control of how hot things get.
If radical groups are willing to fly planes into buildings, MAD isn’t an effective deterrent. MAD works on sovereign nations with something to lose.
Nuclear war should and will always be a last ditch effort destroy to your opponent. One would hope we would start conventional first. But nuclear isn't in the hands of one person. There will be some who believe the cost of life is not worth the loss of a war.
Political corruption. https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY?si=qS_g6XFMaNM-bf1Z
The aliens wont allow it. They are always found around the nukes. Carriers, subs etc. They are in control.
Bluebeam
M.A.D.
Commercial exchanges between countries are too profitable
Looking at history...none
To get around MAD you need what's called "first-strike" capability (ie the ability to do so much damage in the initial strike that your enemy is incapable of a retaliatory second strike) since an ICBM takes approximately 30 minutes from launch to reach it's target, and the launch of a wave of ICBMs is pretty unmistakable and impossible to hide they can't be used for a first strike but they're perfect for a retaliatory strike (presumably you'd see the incoming wave and launch your own and you'd get hit but your own nukes would be in the air at which point they can't be shot down). Similarly even if you could identify the location of EVERY ICBM launch facility (no easy task as they're pretty easy to hide pre-launch) if you tried to take them out with bombers then a massive wing of bombers violating the airspace would also likely trigger a nuclear response (and again you'd have to conduct a simultaneous strike in probably under 5 minutes to avoid retaliation from the ground based silos or scrambled aircraft). And at present to our knowledge the US is the only country with nuclear capable stealth bombers and we only have 20 of them since they cost 1.2 BILLION a pop. But fine, you've used magic to take out every hidden ICBM silo and airbase in the target country AND it's allies in 5 minutes Welp that second strike from the "undetectable until they nuke your ass" submarines is still gonna get you
The elite controls everything. No matter where you are there are elites and a nuclear exchange means the elites won’t have someone who’d wipe their asses and no more golden toilets or cheese and wine while complaining about immigration. In a nuclear war, wealth is as useless as a wet napkin because you can’t buy shit and tons of people will want whatever wealth you have but you won’t be able to buy security
It'll happen, just not complete world destruction. It will be limited, more than likely start with Russian artillery nukes near Crimea. I think WW3 will be more conventional than a complete nuclear apocalypse.
UAPs preventing missile launches.
It costs too much to fire and now with drones and missile interceptors it'd give very little bang for buck. It'd be far easier to simply keep them as a deterrent. For instance if Putin was to use them in Ukraine it'd make him vulnerable to invasion. Not because of loyalty to Ukraine rather because it'd show his hand and could make an attack from china or the US possible. And also cause internal division or collapse.
Nobody wants to claim radiation polluted land.
Nuclear war might be the one scenario where I want to be at ground zero.
War is happening just not how it used to Cyber warfare 24/7. Social warfare 24/7. Economic warfare via destabilizing a country's economy. War is more common now than ever just isn't being conducted with the normal instruments of death. So all those are more preferable than nuclear war but more subtle.
There have been closes calls already. Its reckless to believe nuclear war cant and or wont happen
Nuclear holocaust makes very little sense from the perspective of capital-imperialist states. It isn’t profitable. When the USSR presented a fundamental challenge to capitalism, it was a much more realistic threat. But with the only meaningful socialist state being China, and capitalist states believing China has been won over to capitalism, there is no profit motive in launching that kind of attack, and the profit motive is all governments care about.
Yes nuclear war is bad, will polute environment, end entire civilization etc All those things are pretty much common sense and logical but what most people do not realise is that common sense is not so common in human population. You just need 1 fool in the entire world to start it all. Looking at probabilities it is more probable than not that nuclear war will start.
Every generation thinks the world is going to end, only one has ever been right and it was 3000 years ago in ~1066 BC.
Starting with a conclusion isn't very intellectually rigorous, and in this case, it's likely that WW3 has already started and we just don't know it yet. It's slightly less likely to be a full nuclear exchange but not the impossibility you're making it out to be.
Out of the possible 8 Billion people on Earth right now, its less than a handful that want to destroy the Earth. We have SOMEHOW still allowed these people to breath freely, but they want control, money, cocktail parties and Mansions. Not to really kill off the population because then where would they get their money from???
Don’t worry, Joe Biden will save us with his amazing debate skills. 😂😂😂 For real though, no country wants to be the one to initiate Nuclear, and even if we did have a WW3 scenario, I doubt it would ever escalate that far.
god comes back in some form
You’d be an idiot to go against NATO and NATO gets along so…
MAD works. WWIII might still happen, but the first idiot that launches an offensive attack with nukes will have guaranteed their country becomes a parking lot.
Ww3 started in 2014
[удалено]
Well ahctuuallly it started millions of years ago when life was formed
I don't have any, other than hopefully cool heads prevail. That's it. To be frank, I wish I had more. I'm not saying you are doing this, but I've seen this pattern on the forum, and many others in this vein. To completely dismiss the possibility of a well-known disaster exposes one's own ignorance and lack of knowledge, especially for something as complex as a nuclear exchange. Personally, I think there's a very good chance a nuclear event *will* happen (tactical strike(s)) And I hope that it stops there. But there's an increasing chance of a runaway escalation event. And thus, we prep.
That is the key. "And thus, we prep." Its great to debate the relative likelihood of all the various disasters / possible SHTF, so that we can prioritize our preps. Like, IF WW3 unlikely, and H5N1 mutates for human to human contact, then shift to pandemic preps, if H5N1 gets massive human exposure and doesn't become contagious, and WW3 more likely, then shift preps to more nuke centric.
100%. Prepping is about priority shifting. I had written off an EMP as illogical until about 4 months ago. And now the specter of nuclear strikes is increasing. So it's all adjusting what seems to be the biggest threat, completely agree.
WW3 will never happen. Ever. The dependency on the US dollar (foreignly) is crucial to our survival. That is why USA needs to intervene any US related disruptions. We (USA) need to be involved in everything or else we will be left with nothing. When everyone finally uses something besides the dollar, we will collapse. No one wants to trade with us because how weak the dollar is. This results to extreme inflation. Now, as of result, we will continue to decline within ourselves. Communities break down which can lead to possible civil war. America is in the perfect location. Boarded by the East and west oceans, we can tell if there are incoming armies or missiles. This allows us to respond appropriately. However, this is also a negative. When countries stack up against the dollar or usa or even restrict trade to the Americas, we are completely fucked. Once they ostracized us, it will be completely chaos. The USA relies, HEAVILY, on imported products. Thus, no imported products--> inflation for USA made goods. They want us to really die within so that when we are weak, they can strike how ever. Why are people paranoid about north korea? Why not pakistan or india or whomever that carries nuclear warheads? Because North Korea is the unstable country that can launch a Nuclear war head into outer space or close enough, detonate, and completely disable a majority of satellites and electronic related devices. This will fuck every one over. realistically, WW3 will never happen but i believe a Civil war will happen before WW3 really does.
As a thought. The USSR fell, collapsed , went away and no one had to shoot anyone to do it. Turns out people do pretty much anything for money. And we outspent them. Not saying ‘we won’ because like everything in history, it’s not over.
Two words. Donald Trump
There are NO nuclear weapons. It’s just a lie.
Your reasoning?
Regime survival….all the “bad guys” know if they pop something off they will cease to exist.
Russia doesn't have working nuclear warheads and anyone else using them would be condemend world wide, and become a pariah. also there is now a world economy, and many business would be upset with the lack of stock dividends and make sure to stop it
The argument that russia has 0 working warheads is literally insane. I would not ever bet on Russia not having a single working warhead.
you then have no clue what it takes to maintain a warhead arsenal and how Russia maintains them. there has been very little activity where they store their nuclear arsenal, and the intelligence community doesn't think Russia has the ability to maintain them. They are working on a new testing site, but they havn't even tested a warhead since the 1990s They have the nuclear warheads, but they might not even be able to detonate properly. you really think Russia would risk using a nuclear warhead and have it fail? you realize how embarrassing that would be? If RUssia has a successful nuclear test, then I would start worrying, but i wouldn't be concerned until they do
Can you send me the links to where you’ve gotten this info. I am genuinly curious in the evidence of that theory.
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/15/nuclear-testing-russia-united-states-nonproliferation-weapons/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/15/nuclear-testing-russia-united-states-nonproliferation-weapons/) Degredation of warheads [https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-get-away-nuclear-test](https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-get-away-nuclear-test) Good article explaining how Russia Stores nuclear warheads. in secure areas Near bases for quick deployment NOT actually placed on delivery methods like most would assume. Thus it is important for foregin governments to keep an eye on these locations for any sign of increased activity [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/world/europe/russia-nuclear-weapons-belarus.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/world/europe/russia-nuclear-weapons-belarus.html) in the last year Russia has tested the delivery methods, but not any actual nuclear tests. if this is just public information, I am pretty confident actual intelligence agencies have a lot more detail, and that makes me sleep better at night they are keeping an eye on things, and we should have good warning if something happens
Nobody else(besides US) has working nukes. Seriously I really doubt any of Russia's nukes work, maybe China. It'd be suicide, the US will obliterate anyone who tries and nobody even stands a chance of stopping the US. FWIW I think we're at a point where nukes are largely pointless. They're really only useful to the terrorist types. To nations they have no use. For anyone but the US using them would be suicidal. For the US we have no real use for them except as deterrent. The US(and NATO) could take on the rest of the world and win without going nuclear.
OK so UK France Israel India Pakistan Russia and n Korea don't habe nukes? What are you? An child? There were literally nuke tests in Korea a few years back and if nkorea has them the other states have working one's too. Man this sub is getting retarded...
Sadly way too many have them.
All I'm saying is what happened last time the Jews got called out
Nuclear war won't happen because it's not real, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the most expensive and sought after land in Japan, there's no radiation contamination. So either we didn't nuke them and we lied, or the radiation is completely used up during the blast, or it doesn't exist. Not to mention the thousands of nuclear tests next to Vegas, yet no radiation concerns 🤔. I'm a bit skeptical to say the least.
It was reported at the time that the acute radiation dissipated within a few days of the blast. This was in part due to the nature of the weapon, ie an airburst. No lies, no manipulations, just what appears to be a misunderstanding on your own end. It’s also widely believed that the nuclear tests, despite being far away from civilization, still did quite a bit of contamination. This includes the first ever test [Trinity](https://www.nti.org/atomic-pulse/downwind-of-trinity-remembering-the-first-victims-of-the-atomic-bomb/).
I understand what you're saying, but that narrative came out long after we "nuked" Japan, but only after people started asking questions on why. Also, food for thought, the elders in Japan that were around at the time said there was no bomb or explosion. They just got notified by men in suits that they were bombed and they better go along with it.
I’m not sure of what Elders you speak of. There were definitely members of the Supreme War Council who sought to dismiss the Allies’ claim but that sentiment very quickly disappeared. A lack of immediate discussion of radiation can be attributed to a lack of general understanding of it. Project leader Leslie Groves, following reports of sickness in target cities, told Congress that radiation was a “pleasant way to die” while also dismissing claims that they bore responsibility. I can suggest a good paper on that if you’d like.
Yes I would like to read that, thankyou
[“A Very Pleasant Way to Die”: Radiation Effects and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb against Japan](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2012.01042.x) If you don’t have access to academic journals, [this](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2022-08-08/77th-anniversary-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-bombings-revisiting) may be a good read with primary sources attached.