Why do people think WW3 will be the end of the world?

reply to post by shagula


True..
I read somewhere that more firepower was unleashed on Iraq that the entire bombings of WWII..
Adds a little perspective to our "so called" advancements..
Yes, we are far more proficient at killing than ever before..

reply to post by backinblack


All that this proves is, even though our weapons are more advanced ie they are precision, smart bombs Etc.
They miss with precision too.
So the solution?
We use 10 times as much!
The military industrial complex would be proud.

reply to post by TheAmused


if ww3 happens then it is safe to say there will be lots of deaths. therefore people are justified in thinking it is the end of the world, because it would be in most cases.

reply to post by TheAmused


It's getting on my nerves too...the world won't end...not until the sun explodes in I don't know how many billion years.

WE will end.

Another phrase that's annoying and is said here a lot: " and so it begins "...All cryptic n sh!t...Ah shut upa your face.

We would of all been roasted duck if hitler had nukes...

One thing to keep in mind is that that world has already come close to nuclear war twice, once in 1962 and once in 1983.

In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a Soviet sub was prepared to launch a nuclear torpedo, believing that war had begun. A unanimous vote among the top three officers was required to launch the torpedo, and only one of the three voted against it. The launch of a nuclear torpedo against the US could have easily resulted in a retaliatory strike against the Soviet Union, and since a nuclear torpedo would have already been used, nuclear war would have been likely. We have our buddy Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov to thank for saving the world here.

In 1983, two false alarms could have convnced the Soviets that the US had launched a nuclear attack. Due to the doctrine of MAD, the Soviets would have launched everything back at the US. Luckily, Stanislav Petrov, the guy monitoring the equipment, dismissed both false alarms. If he had reported the missiles, however, the Soviets may have struck back. The US, seeing it as an unprovoked attack, would launched everything back at the Soviets (against, thanks to MAD).



Mutually Assured Destruction isn't infallible. There are two sides to it. It does provide a strong deterrence, but once the first strike has been made, it ensures completely nuclear destruction. The debris would block the sun, likely causing a nuclear winter. People who weren't killed by the initial blasts or the radiation/fallout within the first few months would now be facing starvation, since plants would die, as would the herbivores that feed on them (which we eat). Survivors would be forced to live in barely-habitable locations as all the most-habitable places had the biggest populations, and were this probably targets. Land and water for thousands of miles would be highly irradiated and thus quite lethal, with winter and currents scattering the radiation even further. Would it be the end of all life? Probably not, but it would be a stone age existence for the few humans that were left. Undeveloped countries would fare the best since they wouldn't be primary targets and their populations are much less dependent on technology.


I think nuclear war, if it ever does occur, will be the result of some accident or bad information. MAD is probably enough to keep it from being started on purpose, but, as the name implies, it will ensure completely destruction once it has started, accidentally or not.

"I know not with what weapons World War III
will be fought, but World War IV will be fought
with sticks and stones.
” Albert Einstein (1947)

reply to post by thePharaoh


We ain't had one yet but tell that to the Japanese. Hiroshima and Nagasaki! I hope it doesn't come to that but if it does and we survive in relitivly good health, I will welcome the change. Starting back yo zero. No government. No money. Suvival of the fittest or the most knowledgeable. Most poeple know what the main ingredient in penicillin is. So it would take only a couple of bright individuals to figure how to make it. In case you don't know it's pregnant mare urine or mare urine in heat.

Below is from WiseGeek

Alexander Fleming, a Scottish bacteriologist in London, discovered penicillin by mistake when he was trying to study staphylococci bacteria in 1928. He was running experiments with the bacteria in his laboratory at London's St. Mary's Hospital, and set a laboratory dish containing the bacteria near an open window. Upon returning to the experiment, he found that some mold blown in through the open window onto the dish, contaminating the bacteria.

Instead of throwing away his spoiled experiment, Fleming looked closely at it under his microscope. Surprisingly, he saw not only the mold growing on the staphylococci bacteria, but a clear zone around the mold. The Penicillium mold, the precursor to penicillin, was dissolving the deadly staphylococci bacteria.

Fleming was originally optimistic that penicillin would be useful as an antibacterial agent, as it was safe for the human body, yet potent. Later, in 1931, he changed his mind and decided that penicillin would not last in humans for the duration needed to kill harmful bacteria, and stopped studying it. In 1934, he began another few years of clinical trials and tried to find someone else to purify it.

Thanks wisegeek.com

And there are many other things that have become common knowledge that could help us in the event that WW3 or WW4 or WW75 causes a colapse of the world's governments and technologies. So the people that are left once the smoke clears can rest a little more easy knowing that there are poeple out there willing to band together to help each other and to make the earth our home once again.

reply to post by TheAmused


Because people associate ww3 with ARMAGADON AND THE 2 ARE NO WHERE THE SAME.
be well