It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What would trigger nuclear war?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I suddenly felt the need to ask and hope someone with knowledge answers. What are the catalysts for nuclear war between countries? Would losing in a conventional war cause a country to use nukes? Does it make any sense to completely destroy ones own country and the aggressors country because of a lost war? It is kinda like a Mike Tyson killing Evander Holyfield then commiting suicide because he lost the match instead of biting a piece of his ear off. It does not make any sense. Would just a few nukes be used instead of an all out assault to bring the war to an end? A few nukes would probably make the world stop warring because of the catastrophic effect of just a few would kinda waken people up to the realities of it.

What I really want to know is what is the failsafes an strategies among the wise of the leaders of the countries with nuclear weapons. It can't really be my way or the highway in all armed countries can it? Or is conventional warfare still feasible among nuclear armed nations. Are they humane enough to let conventional warfare play out? Would any nation accept defeat and not use them despite having them for the sake of life?
edit on 10/4/2015 by Gyo01 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gyo01

What I see in the future is that eventually Israel will nuke one of its neighbors and set off a chain reaction bringing in the big 3, Russia, China and the US. The European nations will side with the west. It will all be over in a matter of hours, the radiation will be carried on the jet stream and a nuclear winter will finish off the survivors in a matter of weeks.
Couple that with the weponized bio/chem that will also be released with the nukes to compound the situation.

Glad I don't have any kids because I see this scenario happening sooner rather than later.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Gyo01

A direct, traceable purposeful attack that killed either the head of state of a nuclear armed country, or an attack that killed a large number of civilians (and by that, I mean a very large number) using chemical, nuclear or biological weapons would more than likely invoke a nuclear response.

However, in terms of countries going all out - thats not feasible. Its unwinnable and no one is that stupid.

As for your last question, weapons are there to be used if ncessary. Having them indicates a willingness to use them if need be.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gyo01
I suddenly felt the need to ask and hope someone with knowledge answers. What are the catalysts for nuclear war between countries? Would losing in a conventional war cause a country to use nukes? Does it make any sense to completely destroy ones own country and the aggressors country because of a lost war? It is kinda like a Mike Tyson killing Evander Holyfield then commiting suicide because he lost the match instead of biting a piece of his ear off. It does not make any sense. Would just a few nukes be used instead of an all out assault to bring the war to an end? A few nukes would probably make the world stop warring because of the catastrophic effect of just a few would kinda waken people up to the realities of it.

What I really want to know is what is the failsafes an strategies among the wise of the leaders of the countries with nuclear weapons. It can't really be my way or the highway in all armed countries can it? Or is conventional warfare still feasible among nuclear armed nations. Are they humane enough to let conventional warfare play out? Would any nation accept defeat and not use them despite having them for the sake of life?


Both nuclear powers play war game simulations. In the past, the tensions towards war would build up because one country seized territory of another, then brought in reinforcements. The invaded country would mount a response. Full mobilization of armed forces on each side would occur. Air strikes would begin, then existing alliances on both sides would be activated. Before we know it, everyone is shelling and bombing each other as in World War II.

Now, we have cruise missiles, carpet bombing, air strikes, which allow the telephone exchanges, government buildings, power stations and international airports all to be blown up within minutes. A country can be bombed back into the stone age with the minimum of effort. Then we'll leave it up to the citizens to sort their government out.

Instead, the superpowers play proxy wars where they provide financial and military support to political groups and militias, then let the two fight it over.

You'd only get an all out nuclear war if one country figured they might be able to take over the world if they nuked all the cities of the other country.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Lack of bacon or bacon products on a worldwide scale.........A little levity before the doom comes.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
The first we will see is a build up of forces probably between Russia and the west. Than We will see small tacktical nukes being used against the force build up. These will be use before anything becomes conventional. Soon after we will see a all out nucklear war . Where both sides going all inn. There wont be a conventional war because the west have the upper hand.

We have no say in the matter because we are nothing but ignorant working ants, thinking we will fight a conventional war and winn.




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
too many funny looking people.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
One scary aspect of nuclear brinksmanship is that it doesn't work if your criteria or even your honest assessment of the situation is knheown to the other side. Semi-bluffing is almost a requirement.

The obvious basic criteria though is are you better off with or without launching.

If the US marines are crossing the border into Russia and Putin's army is in full retreat, well sure Russia might be better off accepting defeat, but what about the decision maker?

He doesn't launch, he goes into hiding and spends the rest of his life dodging SEALs who want to drag him off to a war crimes trial. If he launches, the war is immediately over with double casualties and he remains powerful and safe in a bunker.

So you can't back an adversary into a corner, and the most likely way to trigger a war is not to realize you've cornered him.

You do something that limits the enemy future options but doesn't put them in a crisis- invade Ukraine maybe.
They feel they must respond in kind- maybe invade Iran.
It turns out Iran was more important than you thought to them- maybe going for a replacement location on their border convinces them you're trying to complete a missile shield that nullifies their deterrent- they feel they must stop you at all costs.
So they warn you they will defend Iran and you call their bluff. They nuke your invasion fleet. You have to respond in kind or it will happen again, so you a military logistics hub and cripple their army back.

Now it's time for both sides to back away from the table having proved how dangerous it is to disrupt the status quo against them.

But now you've got unpredictable factors- vengeful citizens and soldiers- economic and diplomatic consequences of a limited nuclear war could cause a non nuclear aftershock- maybe Russia annexes what's left of Ukraine and Iran, or maybe the US orchestrates a coup in Cuba seeking new revenue to rebuild with. This could trigger an unauthorized response or regime change and second war on either side.

At some point somebody realizes the limited exchanges will never end at this point because there's too much bad blood and is desperate enough to attempt a strike that will cripple the enemy.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Gyo01

What I see in the future is that eventually Israel will nuke one of its neighbors and set off a chain reaction bringing in the big 3, Russia, China and the US. The European nations will side with the west. It will all be over in a matter of hours, the radiation will be carried on the jet stream and a nuclear winter will finish off the survivors in a matter of weeks.
Couple that with the weponized bio/chem that will also be released with the nukes to compound the situation.

Glad I don't have any kids because I see this scenario happening sooner rather than later.


I'm pretty certain this will occur within the next 3 years. The attack on Iran by Israel will occur once the Saudi regime collapses internally. Current King suffers from severe dementia, only one more brother of the same generation left followed by thousands of their sons and nephews who are in their late 60s and desperate to take the throne. Couple that with the rising tension between Yemen and the Saudi Royals occurring now and an imminent ground invasion, it's not looking good.

Btw, I'm not a doomtard, I know when there's trouble on the way.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Gyo01

What I see in the future is that eventually Israel will nuke one of its neighbors and set off a chain reaction bringing in the big 3, Russia, China and the US. The European nations will side with the west. It will all be over in a matter of hours, the radiation will be carried on the jet stream and a nuclear winter will finish off the survivors in a matter of weeks.
Couple that with the weponized bio/chem that will also be released with the nukes to compound the situation.

Glad I don't have any kids because I see this scenario happening sooner rather than later.


Actually, I see it a little differently.

Iran has said quite publicly and quite openly
that they wish to wipe Israel off the map entirely.

www.nytimes.com...

That is what the nuclear deal is all about with the US.
They can continue to make nuclear bomb "fuel"
under the guise of research and electric power.
Then once they have enough to nuke Israel off the map,
just as they have said they will do openly and publicly,
they will nuke Israel.

I don't see Israel doing a preemptive strike.
But if they gather intelligence
(and their intelligence is the best in the entire world, there is none better),
that Iran has a nuke aimed at Israel,
then maybe out of preemptive self defense they might,
and I would not blame them.
However, I think Isreal would not nuke,
but rather bomb the *&^% out of the nuke factory in Iran.
www.foxnews.com...

So I actually think it will be one of the crazy wacko Middle East
countries who lob the first nuke,

because it is a goal of the Muslim countries to start the apocalypse,
they actually want to bring the world to an end to serve Muhammad.
When religion is the main motivation behind the goal of ending the world
it is the strongest motivator not to bluff, but to nuke and be done with it.


Well, the ME will be the first and will be doing it to try and end the world
for rabid religious reasons -
along with wiping Israel off the map.



edit on 4Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:50:29 -0500pm41004pmk105 by grandmakdw because: format spelling addition



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
This guy gives a pretty good scenario once the nukes start to fly.


edit on 10-4-2015 by Boeing777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Cognitive dissonance is very difficult to get over, I know. The truth is however, Israel isn't that sweet innocent angel you have pictured in you head. They are itching to press that button and launch those nukes at Iran. If one nuke starts to fly, all the worlds nukes will start flying and that means we're both dead.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
We are being prepped for the next hostile use of thermonuclear weapons. All of the hype...US vs. Russia, Syria-Yemen-Ukraine proxies...

I think we will need an exchange of mass casualties captured in the full glory of social media in order to get people to be less hostile And quit with the phony arms races and cheat thumping.
Imagine the sharing of pictures of people walking with flesh melted off STILL ALIVE how many Facebook likes will that get?

War sucks everyone.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
1. If one of the superpowers is sure that they are under nuclear attack.

2. If there is a conventional war between the superpowers; the losing side may resort to the nuclear option.
edit on 10.4.2015 by CJCrawley because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: grandmakdw

Cognitive dissonance is very difficult to get over, I know. The truth is however, Israel isn't that sweet innocent angel you have pictured in you head. They are itching to press that button and launch those nukes at Iran. If one nuke starts to fly, all the worlds nukes will start flying and that means we're both dead.




We do agree it will be the Middle East,
and I think that a Middle East
rabid wacko sicko overly religious dictator/prince/king/Imam
will decide to honor Muhammad and end the world by nuking Israel.
Then yes, Israel will most likely retaliate,
but because the Jews are fighting for the survival of the Jewish people
and the Muslims are wanting to end the world for Muhammad,
well, plenty of nukes will fly.


That most likely means nuclear winter for the entire world,
with a projected human die off rate of 80-90% of the world population.

I think it will be a Muslim leader who really wants to bring about the apocalypse who will start it.
It won't be for political reasons at all,
the first all out nuclear war will be due to fanatical religious reasons.

The superpowers aren't stupid enough to do something guaranteed to wipe out 80%+ of all humanity, themselves included.

Religious fanatics trying to actually end the world
won't care at all if what they do kills 80%+
of all the people in the world,
they'll actually be sad it isn't 100%.




You don't need to insult me, you can disagree without insulting people, can't you?

Never said Israel is sweet and innocent,
you projected that onto me and I don't appreciate "mind reading"
by fellow ATSers.

Israel is the best in the entire world at the spy business,
and they are not wimps about it either.
Israel is swift, deadly and all about making sure
they aren't wiped off the map, as Hitler tried so hard to do.




edit on 5Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:10:11 -0500pm41004pmk105 by grandmakdw because: format addition spelling reorganization



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore




However, in terms of countries going all out - thats not feasible. Its unwinnable and no one is that stupid.


You have a lot more faith in the worlds leaders than I have. It may not even be an intentional exchange; it could be something as commonplace as a technological glitch or simple miscommunication.

I see the species as technologically sophisticated but still operating from primitive, tribal and violent emotions. A very dangerous combination.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gyo01

What would trigger nuclear war?
If not fanaticism then-
The old classics,human error or computer glitch.

en.wikipedia.org...

io9.com...

We have been lucky so far,but lady luck is a fleeting mistress.

edit on 10/4/2015 by Silcone Synapse because: sp



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: grandmakdw

Cognitive dissonance is very difficult to get over, I know. The truth is however, Israel isn't that sweet innocent angel you have pictured in you head. They are itching to press that button and launch those nukes at Iran. If one nuke starts to fly, all the worlds nukes will start flying and that means we're both dead.


You don't need to insult me, you can disagree without insulting people, can't you?

Never said Israel is sweet and innocent,
you projected that onto me and I don't appreciate "mind reading"
by fellow ATSers.

Israel is the best in the entire world at the spy business,
and they are not wimps about it either.
Israel is swift, deadly and all about making sure
they aren't wiped off the map, as Hitler tried so hard to do.

We do agree it will be the Middle East,
and I think that a Middle East
rabid wacko sicko overly religious dictator/prince/king/Imam
will decide to honor Muhammad and end the world by nuking Israel.
Then yes, Israel will most likely retaliate,
but because the Jews are fighting for the survival of the Jewish people
and the Muslims are wanting to end the world for Muhammad,
well, plenty of nukes will fly.


That most likely means nuclear winter for the entire world,
with a projected human die off rate of 80-90% of the world population.

I think it will be a Muslim leader who really wants to bring about the apocalypse who will start it.
It won't be for political reasons at all,
the first all out nuclear war will be due to fanatical religious reasons.


The superpowers aren't stupid enough to do something guaranteed to wipe out 80%+ of all humanity, themselves included.

Religious fanatics trying to actually end the world
won't care at all if what they do kills 80%+
of all the people in the world,
they'll actually be sad it isn't 100%.







I apologise if you felt offended by my post by my comment. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that, even if I feel offended. I noticed your hardcore pro-Israel stance coupled with the usual MSM rhetoric with Israel "only trying to survive".

Israel's neighbours are all collapsing, ISIS pillaging and murdering across the ME yet hasn't fired a single bullet at Israel.
Israel even provides medical aid to these Jihadists yet is portrayed as a "victim" of ISIS in MSM. Like it or not but they have big plans, preparing for the arrival of the Messiah. Before that can happen, Israel needs to be the dominant force in the ME and its borders expanded. Iran and Pakistan are standing in the way. The Saudi Royals will self-destruct within the next 2 years.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
The day that yoga pants get banned.

No reason to live after that.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
3. If/when one superpower believes they can fight and win a nuclear war.

Like the Strategic Defense Initiative. What happened to that?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join