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.
reply to post by daaskapital
Many countries are not stupid enough to use nukes, as if one were to nuke another, they too will be destroyed. It is in no country's best interest to use nuclear weapons.
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
reply to post by daaskapital
Many countries are not stupid enough to use nukes, as if one were to nuke another, they too will be destroyed. It is in no country's best interest to use nuclear weapons.
Than why are there so many nuclear weapons around the world?
Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Because we have lost our guts for real wars and its easier this way; cheaper, and a lot faster. Probably not gonna like the ending though. All major cities will be wiped out guaranteed
Why do you all think that WW3 will be a Nuclear war?
Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
reply to post by SGTSECRET
To prevent wars. By saying "We have nuclear weapons and can use them" other countries think twice about an attack. Without nuclear weapons, i'm sure the "cold war" wouldn't have been cold and also India and Pakistan would've been long engaged in a war or south and north korea or quite a few other countries who hate each other so much.
I doubt that any country would use their nuclear weapons, they know exactly what would happen (nuclear attacks from other countries) and what the outcome would be (complete devastation)
If there's a World War III, it will be a conventional War.
Now considering the Nations that have nuclear capabilities....Israel, Pakistan, USA, China, France, England, India, Germany(??), Italy, South Africa(??), North Korea , to name a few - it becomes a reasonable conclusion that a hypothetical WWIII will involve nuclear weapons.
Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean that 50 MT nuclear war heads will be detonating around the globe ensuring a MAD scenario- with low yield tatical nukes, multi war head ICBM's and counter ABM's....it will make for an interesting "what if".
Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by TritonTaranis
The Cold War was a very dangerous situation, yet both sides (who hated each other) did not fire nukes.
Originally posted by deessell
Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by TritonTaranis
The Cold War was a very dangerous situation, yet both sides (who hated each other) did not fire nukes.
I disagree that both sides (US and Soviet Union) hated each other. During the Kissinger years there was detente. Kissinger's realpolitik acknowledged that the Soviet Union was a 'great power', and therefore allowed them to have their own sphere of influence.
It was the election of neo-conservatives in the west that saw the end of detente.
First of all, why on earth is it so difficult to understand - it's not England when spoken about in this context it's the United Kingdom or simply the UK!
Russia is a noteable omission
neither Germany or Italy has any nuclear weapons and South Africa no longer has any...... the US has deployed nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey but they are under control of the US)
Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
And what would they achieve by doing all that?
Consider the fact that to be able to manipulate a nuclear war, to build 'underground cities' and be able to stock them etc to survive a nuclear winter and then regenerate earth to be able to sustain life again requires an incredible amount of power and influence.
If they already have that power, influence and control why bother?
What do they gain?
Sorry, it just doesn't add up.
Chill out dude, my error - the"UK" would be the correct term to use.
Thanks for the update, particularly Italy - note my "??" beside Germany and South Africa.
I'm by no means singling any particular Nation/s as likely instigators - moreso, highlighting the broad spread of nuclear capable Nations and the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons were WWIII to break out.
That is MY opinion and in response to the OP.