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.

 

Are We Closer To Nuclear War Now Than In The 1950 and 1960'S?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
With the events taking place in North Korea last week, coupled with the confict inIraq and the situation in Iran. Also, with the conflict between Isreal and Syria, What do you think?

It seems like we need to have disaster drills and build personal fallout shelters again.

We need to start up the air raid sirens again.




[edit on 8-7-2006 by phxgunnut]

[edit on 8-7-2006 by phxgunnut]




posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Wow! What a response! Let me be the first to respond!

The answer is "yes"

Kind Regards,
phxgunnut



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
If you are using the 60's thinking of the cuban missile crisis as the closest we have been to nuclear war, that pales in comparison to 1983.

Stanislav Petrov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stanislav Yefgrafovich Petrov (Russian: Станислав Евграфович Петров) (born c. 1939) is a retired Russian Strategic Rocket Forces colonel who, on September 26, 1983, averted a potential nuclear war by refusing to believe that the United States had launched missiles against the USSR, despite the indications given by his computerized early warning systems. The Soviet computer reports were later shown to have been in error, and Petrov is credited with preventing World War III and the devastation of much of the Earth by nuclear weapons. Because of military secrecy and international policy, Petrov's actions were kept secret until 1998.

This incident is one of several high-risk decisions that were made by strategic nuclear forces over the years of the Cold War, often at the last minute, by administrative personnel far from the chain of command.


So to answer your question relative to the above, no, imo.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
All-out nuclear war - no

All out nuclear incident - yes

The threat of a smuggled weapon or a madman firing a missile in desparation are much higher now than in the past.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Closer to nuclear war today vs. 1950-1960…

No, not by a long shot…. the afore mentioned Petrov example and Nixon’s “Nuclear Ploy” are short examples of how far away from nuclear war the world is today.

Each and every nut-bag leader that desires to overtly and specifically threaten with these weapons leaning toward fruition will not only loose their seat, country and countrymen…they will also loose in the historical records as the first to fall by nuclear threats, own empty threats, words etc….sad….

mg



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I'd have to say no...for 2 reasons....it isnt confrimed Iran has a nuclear weapon and is suspected north korea has them because, well they flat out told the world that. Keeping that in my mind.... take the missiles Iran or North Korea use....North Koreas missiles are a joke and Iran's arent long range enough to hit the US mainland, however they could hit bases in afghanistan and iraq.

during the cold war both the US and USSR had missiles capable of reaching ANY spot on the planet...they also both had thermonuclear weapons.

The situation with world power wanna be's like Iran and NK pales in comparison to the cold war.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
sorry double post.



[edit on 8-7-2006 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
IF Iran have a nuke, and Israël continue their genocide of the palestinian people, and then ONE nuke strike Israël, WW3 begins. It's a simple as that.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
No, and we won't be any closer to it in another 50 years either.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
In one word "yeah"

I think the world is a much more dangerous place with rogue states everywhere developing nuclear weapons than the bipolar situation that existed during the Cold War.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
IF Iran have a nuke, and Israël continue their genocide of the palestinian people, and then ONE nuke strike Israël, WW3 begins. It's a simple as that.


Doubt it. The world's population would not mass support a war for these reasons. No country can go into a world war with their country against it. Israel would strike back. Aid would flow in to these countries. The world would not go to war. There are ways that WW3 can start, and this is just not one of the ways. If China attacked American bases, or Russia did, that could produce a WW3.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by Vitchilo
IF Iran have a nuke, and Israël continue their genocide of the palestinian people, and then ONE nuke strike Israël, WW3 begins. It's a simple as that.


Doubt it. The world's population would not mass support a war for these reasons. No country can go into a world war with their country against it. Israel would strike back. Aid would flow in to these countries. The world would not go to war. There are ways that WW3 can start, and this is just not one of the ways. If China attacked American bases, or Russia did, that could produce a WW3.


Surely not populations but crazy leaders who want their clash of the civilisation happening, yes. And when did you voted for the iraq invasion? Bush will not ask his population, if he want to go nuclear, he'll go nuclear. It's fast and they won't have the time to ask.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by Vitchilo
IF Iran have a nuke, and Israël continue their genocide of the palestinian people, and then ONE nuke strike Israël, WW3 begins. It's a simple as that.


Doubt it. The world's population would not mass support a war for these reasons. No country can go into a world war with their country against it. Israel would strike back. Aid would flow in to these countries. The world would not go to war. There are ways that WW3 can start, and this is just not one of the ways. If China attacked American bases, or Russia did, that could produce a WW3.


Surely not populations but crazy leaders who want their clash of the civilisation happening, yes. And when did you voted for the iraq invasion? Bush will not ask his population, if he want to go nuclear, he'll go nuclear. It's fast and they won't have the time to ask.


If Israel is attacked with nuclear weapons, the US won't attack a country with nuclear weapons just due to that reason. Israel will attack them back. Nuclear weapons will be used as a last resort if there is a WW3. Because if nuclear weapons were used, there would be no world war. Nobody who is in charge of industrial nations are crazy enough to set off nukes. Especially because another country is attacked.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
No. Nuclear weapons are, in my humble opinion, actually peace-keepers. No NATION will ever use a nuclear weapon against another nation. It just isn't ever going to happen. I don't care how insane anyone thinks the leaders of rogue nations such as NK and Iran are, they will not launch a nuclear attack on anyone b/c they will not exist thirty minutes after the initial attack.

If it wasn't for nuclear weapons, the cold war may have actually been a "hot" war. Neither superpower could attack the other in anyway b/c in a matter of days both nations would be rubble. So there wasn't any fighting.

After the complete and utter horror the atomic bombs brought to japan in ww2, every world leader knew that they couldn't use the much more powerfuly hydrogen bombs b/c it would be a publicity disaster and shortly thereafter they would be wiped off the face of the earth and go down in history as the bastard that decided to pull the trigger and cause the downfall of civilization...

Nuclear bombs=peace



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   


Nuclear bombs=peace
That was true in the cold war, but no more, because the MAD is no more. Now, the US is superior to MAD, so they can win and with the US going down, they can use that advantage to ``take over the world`` or to use it so they stay THE superpower in the world.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
In one word "yeah"

I think the world is a much more dangerous place with rogue states everywhere developing nuclear weapons than the bipolar situation that existed during the Cold War.


I'll have to respectfully disagree. The world is in no danger of almost total destruction today. Sure, a nuke or dirty bomb could be set off in a populated area, but it wouldn't go much farther than that. The enemy today doesn't have a thermonuclear arsenal. They may have a couple primitive bombs at best, meaning that after setting one off they would have effectively zero chance of stopping or surviving the counterattack, if it even came. The "war" would be over in a matter of hours.

And there are not "rogue states everywhere". There are only a couple, and they pose not even a fraction of a percent of the threat that the Soviet Union once did.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
nuclear weapons were always a threat when they were invented so the threat has always been the same since 1942 or whenever



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
No. We are not closer to nuclear war than in the past. We could be closer to a one time attack, but not an all out exchange.

This is more North Korea sabre rattling. They know an attack would be futile.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Are you COMPLETELY unaware of the renewed arms race?

Here is a brief on the matter to get you all up to speed (or sorry, some of you) at least a few of you have a clue here..

www.globalresearch.ca...

.. K? So not only is the Bush admin making NEW NUKES.. but so are the Russians. On top of that India and Pak just BOTH recently aquired nukes themselves. Who KNOWS if NK actually has them, IRAN MIGHT HAVE THEM up their sleaves. And of course... Israel has these "comfortable" nuclear weapons... ones that will not kill millions... just thousands... because they alledgedly dig in to the ground and ONLY blow up stuff under the ground (putting 1000s of tons of radioactive crap in to the planets atmosphere) like Iranian nuclear power plants and the RUSSIANS that are inside them.


HELL YES WE ARE CLOSER TO NUCLEAR WAR THEN EVER BEFORE!

The MORE NUKES in MORE HANDS with GOD KNOWS WHO FIRING AT WHO as they could drive the damn thing in to your backyard and detonate it and its the perfect self cleaning crime because HOW IN THE HELL ARE YOU GONNA KNOW WHO DID IT?

Its coming. Just make sure you are somewhere where you can say...

"What the heck was that?"

.. after it explodes.. the only safe place to be.


-VMX



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Just to put a different slant on the cold war, there is a school of thought that the Cold War was just a front to distract the masses while the Russians and US decided what to do with the ET situation. The history books are sometimes not the pearls of goodness we take them for.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join