Forget about the Nukes

There have never been Nuclear World War and probably will never be. The nuclear detonation of a big nuke is not a child's play. And CAN be predicted. The tactical small nuclear warheads are not as easily predictable, yet they are used in regional conflicts mostly. There is no tactical advantage if China or Russia attack US. Neither Military nor Economical. China and Russia's current game is to "wait and wane US", economically, not provoke it.

The game of US is the opposite, they "False Flag" events to provoke window for aggression by their side "as necessary", in this way stirring world conflicts, to hide the fail of the Petro-dollar in the chaos of the war (and drain some third-country resources meanwhile). However, US understands that they must be "careful" how they play it, because Russia is no more a disarmed bear, and if (as already Russian leaders multiply times replied) they get a threat on their territory, or being provoked directly, they will immediately retaliate. This means either PRO of NATO(US) fails in Europe and US get decimated in 50 minutes or so, or PRO in Europe has partial success and some of the US gets only obliterated, so they can retaliate with their 1000+ left nuclear warheads, so then Russia and US are going to be decimated both, with the world falling in nuclear fallout.

However, this scenario is naturally almost IMPOSSIBLE, since US are not having some potatoes for Military Intelligence Personnel, and they would never allow such UNPRODUCTIVE war to be taking place. This CAN only be started by US and ultimately they DO NOT achieve their goals with it, so FORGET about it.

The scenario that is actually more realistic is the "Cloak and dagger" one. The evolvement of "bio weaponry" , "electromagnetic weaponry", "space weaponry", "intelligence weaponry" (they have been evolving the last 40 years, in expense to the nuclear growth, exactly for that reason - no dumb chimpanzee is going to throw nukes at each other's garden, especially after it has been once tested @Hiroshima&Nagasaki, with practical result showing it's ultimate danger, when the other side has also a big nuke(s)).

So if not nukes then what? - Well! The massive info wars are the bread and butter of this scenario and the masses and their pressure on the governments is the key. So no more 10000 nuclear warheads needed to lead a good world war, now it is done with facebooks and twitters and all other "innocent CIA invention" Reference: Check OPERATION HYPERSTORM on ATS. Producs go where money talks, and money talks in language know only to the "money monkey", so we honest people, who care about life, beer and all these three things... we are hardly capable of encompassing all that is going on on the word stage. And we should not really care about them, but more care about us, 'bout staying the same proud ones, as we were and defending vigorously all the natural values or fathers did. Only that way WE will win this World War and THEY will FAIL!

-ego

a reply to: Egoismyname

There have never been Nuclear World War and probably will never be.

We used against Japan 2 times in WW2.

a reply to: Egoismyname

I'm sorry to say I think you have a fairly narrow view of the possibilities and probabilities of nuclear war.

Have you considered the Korean contingency? Or an Iran backed attack on Israel? Muslim extremists? Or possibly a US/China proxy war with a number of different players? Or the Pakistan/India contingency?

And don't forget the neutron bomb - kill the people without destroying the land. Less fallout and the kill zone becomes habitable much sooner.

As for other types of warfare, if I were attacking the US I would first contaminate any water supply I had access to then go after the power grid. But thats me...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Egoismyname

I'm sorry to say I think you have a fairly narrow view of the possibilities and probabilities of nuclear war.

Have you considered the Korean contingency? Or an Iran backed attack on Israel? Muslim extremists? Or possibly a US/China proxy war with a number of different players? Or the Pakistan/India contingency?

And don't forget the neutron bomb - kill the people without destroying the land. Less fallout and the kill zone becomes habitable much sooner.

As for other types of warfare, if I were attacking the US I would first contaminate any water supply I had access to then go after the power grid. But thats me...

Or try and use their resources against them. The greatest resource is the humanity of 300 million people. Get them to expend that resource combating it’s own nature. Divide. Fragment. Convert. Usurp. Backstab each other as opportunity presents itself.

a reply to: Egoismyname

There have never been Nuclear World War and probably will never be. The nuclear detonation of a big nuke is not a child's play. And CAN be predicted. The tactical small nuclear warheads are not as easily predictable, yet they are used in regional conflicts mostly. There is no tactical advantage if China or Russia attack US. Neither Military nor Economical. China and Russia's current game is to "wait and wane US", economically, not provoke it.

This is what MAD is all about.

a reply to: Egoismyname

Escalation.

Always happens.

Some policeman kills someone, for whatever reason, and the world burns.

As it ever was.

Nuclear war is the promise that keeps world peace. Up until recently anyone capable of destroying the world as we know it had far too much to lose in changing things to their gain.

The West has been minutes away from the point of no return and I'm sure the east had similar experiences in the past so I wouldn't go as far to say that any side would never do it. I just believe the sides capable of destroying the world would do so out of self defense against a perceived attack.

A splinter cell within a nuclear armed nation, a rogue state, 3rd party trading or recovery of a lost nuclear weapon are all very possible scenarios that could bring nuclear armageddon.

Detonating a nuclear warhead isn't difficult if you have all the tools, hiding one is possible with the right resources, sourcing one is possible with the right links or equipment and frankly I know the operation of 2nd strike capabilities is taken extremely seriously by any nation with the capacity.

The thing about 2nd strike capabilities is they're equally effective as first strike platforms too.

Anyways, war amongst the civilized has always been about control. Not annihilation. These days most of us can see the usefulness in others... In a general sense anyways.

a reply to: Egoismyname
I hope you are right,and there will never be a global nuclear war-But there are a few scenarios where I think it could happen sadly.

A group like ISIS/AQ could detonate a black market nuke in a location which makes it appear like an attack from a world power.If they were clever about it,they could do it somewhere their enemy is operating-somewhere like the south china sea,maybe blow up a chinese island base and do so when the US are operating nearby,to blame them.

Israel and Russia(and maybe others)are said to have a "dead mans switch" type of automatic nuclear response to certain overwhelming attacks-Isreals is called "the Samson option" while Russias is called "Dead Hand."
Maybe one of these automated reponses could launch by mistake-We have come close to this once before,when Russias launch detection system mistook some rare high altitude clouds as a missile launch.

The most likely scenario however,would be a country who gets a leader who is evil and mad at the same time and who gets backed into a corner or just made to look bad by another country-Look at world leaders in history and even today,we have had our fair share of evil leaders over the years.
There are plenty to choose from sadly,but as an example-If Hitler had a load of nukes at the tail end of WW2,when he knew all was lost-Do you think he would have used them or not?

Sadly,I think our very nature makes a nuclear war very possible if the circumstances line up.

a reply to: Egoismyname
I've said this numerous times, if Russia or China wanted the US it would simply buy it. That speaks simplicity but in reality it would be more complex.
For all those looking on complety destroying the US in the hopes of destroying some or all of the retaliating missiles think on this, the US has more missiles spread about the globe to do more than enough damage. And by that I mean any country thinking to attack the US the killer nukes are not in the US, so attacking the US mainland would be futile.

The nuclear detonation of a big nuke is not a child's play.

Yeeeah... I haven't really seen any credible evidence that 'nucelar detonation' exists.

I haven't researched into this topic TOO deeply, so I can't say with conviction whether 'nukes exist' or not, but judging from old photos and videos, and the incredibly contradictory and suspicious stories peppered with falsehoods and impossibilities (eyes, for example, can't melt), and the impossibility of ever having any ACTUAL evidence that they exist (you can't really prove it without actually blasting a place and then following its deadly radioactivity halving at the predicted speed for .. tens of thousands of years?)..

My point is, 'superweapon that you can never prove' is extremely convenient, and if someone doubts, just shove some really badly manufactured, old videos and suspicious photos (of cities that look identical to those of firebombed cities, with some trees and structures still standing intact) to their faces together with incredible, 'scary stories' about eyes melting, etc.

Maybe, just MAYBE no one ever had nukes, and everything was just another big lie (the bigger the lie, the easier people believe it) among a pile of big lies, and THAT's why governments have been always so hesitant to 'nuke anything' when the opportunity rises.

Just as a sidenote; all those supposed 'nuke detonation' videos have odd 'thing smoke streams' next to them for some reason (unexplained), and clouds seem 100% unaffected by other 'nuke detonations' according to photos and videos (magical superweapons?).

Yeah, if they don't exist, I suppose it wouldn't be 'Child's Play' (or even as scary as that movie was).