-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
What are the actual odds of a another country using Nukes again?
- Thread starter I Am Captain America
- Start date
Less than .01%. With nukes there no guarantee of containing the conflict. Any nation who uses them as a first use risks a global nuclear conflict.
Very small I reckon. Super powers are in a very long term stale and can't risk nuclear warfare. It's the looney with 1 we would be more worried about then a Country thousands of them.
The worst part is that, in reality, things would be even worse.
As for the 'somehow', I'd say it's because, unlike America, we're an English-Speaking country that experienced both the full horror of WW1 and the 'total war' aspect of WW2. Couple that with a generally more pessimistic/cynical worldview and it makes sense that we'd make Threads.
My bet is that the next nuke will either be from a rogue faction, or from an out of control India vs Pakistan conflict.
Its terrifying that the world let Pakistan develop nuclear weapons. It's a country packed with instability and religious extremism. Certain elements of the government have even shown to be sympathetic to various terror groups. Iran is obviously different than Pakistan, but I don't want them to have nuclear weapons either. MAD doesn't mesh well with martyr cultures and non-state actors.
Its terrifying that the world let Pakistan develop nuclear weapons. It's a country packed with instability and religious extremism. Certain elements of the government have even shown to be sympathetic to various terror groups. Iran is obviously different than Pakistan, but I don't want them to have nuclear weapons either. MAD doesn't mesh well with martyr cultures and non-state actors.
Very, very, very low. Logically, why bother? Prolongation of human life is a natural instinct and global thermonuclear war would kill us all off, which would not be worth it.
However, any y'all played a Metal Gear Solid game?
However, any y'all played a Metal Gear Solid game?
Sure you should never say never, but id say its pretty unlikely. Everbody is aware about its destroying capacity and also about the potential of a counter attack. Speaking about souvereign countries.
I honestly think movies like this, Doctor Strangelove etc. might have actually helped save civilization. Top down the bring home the reality of how close to nuclear annihilation we are any given day, and how fucked up the resulting world would be.
Hell fucking War Games scared Reagan into securing our nuclear payloads better.
Im not sure, these countries have to make economy/trade agreements to keep their countries stable. They are also pretty young national economies (relevance wise) and probably not interested in getting isolated.
Sure, China is acting aggressively in Taiwan and in the southern chinese sea as it wants to expand and get their 'rightfully entitled' regions. But even Taiwan is a huge investor in China. Russia is also trying to expand like done in Ossetia or Sewastopol for example. But i really cant see a realistic scenario where these countries could go that far.
I'm not sure if it's quantifiable in any way. Nevertheless the Doomsday Clock shows 2 minutes to midnight. It was 10 minutes to midnight in 1990.
I'm in the middle of reading Command and Control by Eric Schlosser and it's focus is on one specific accident at a missile silo, intertwined with the history of America's nuclear weapons / missile programs and my uninformed opinion is that the risk of accident by human error or mechanical malfunction is way higher than some rogue actor.
I'm halfway through and it's only discussed up until 1980, but man there's been a lot of close calls.
I'm halfway through and it's only discussed up until 1980, but man there's been a lot of close calls.
Lemme clarify: I can see a situation where someone (not necessarily those two mentioned) uses a tactical nuke that is comparable in strength to a traditional bomb. Just a flex, to say, "yeah we technically crossed that line, but you know you're not gonna start a war over a rebel camp being wiped out."
I don't see it used in a traditional war any time soon until the next total war.
I don't think a typical power will ever use them. If you have something to lose, it isn't worth it.
It would take a really batshit independent group or some very twisted rogue state to ever contemplate it.
It would take a really batshit independent group or some very twisted rogue state to ever contemplate it.
Or purpose? I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if there's an accident or terrorist plot involving one though. Remember when the US accidentally nuked North Carolina?
About the size of ISIS territory in Iraq, let's say
There's an HD version of Threads now? The original was disturbing enough!
For real, within the first year of having nukes Pakistan started a brief war with India and another conflict in 2001. People are scared of some crazy people like Kim or Trump but Pakistan is a unstable nightmare. A country that's sympathetic to some groups like Al-Qaeda (who hid Bin Laden for years without anyone knowing) An unending beef with India that's going to end with nuclear if a crazy fundamentalist comes into power.
The Hamberdler nukes the White House toilet every night. So 100%
Seriously though, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened..then again, I'm not sure anyone has been crazy enough to chance the repercussions either.
Seriously though, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened..then again, I'm not sure anyone has been crazy enough to chance the repercussions either.
I'd actually say it's pretty low. I don't see an icbm happening. More likely would be a cell somehow getting their hands on the right stuff from Russia/former ussr or Pakistan and successfully using it. I think with how pervasive communications Intel is though that's really pretty unlikely too.
I just think, we keep fear mongering these other nations without looking at what is actually before our eyes. Who has actually used nukes in the past? Were they absolutely apologetic about it, or do they justify their usage of it? How is their behavior in the current world climate? Are they peaceful, or do they have military operations in various endeavors around the world?
It would be like looking at a room of 20 people and trying to determine who the likely child molester could be and randomly picking someone. Meanwhile one of the 20 actually has a history of molestation on his record. THAT is the guy most likely to commit the crime again.
I don't think it would be the big nations that would do it. I think it would be a smaller nation where shit goes downhill fast, like a swift change in government sees irresponsible suicidal people in charge, or it will be a final act of desperation or revenge by a small nation losing a war.
But hey, maybe nothing will continue to happen.
But hey, maybe nothing will continue to happen.
I don't follow Pakistan too closely, but isn't Khan relatively progressive? While I don't think it has necessarily eased tensions with India, I think the biggest risk would be the security of their nukes, not the government themselves.
I wouldn't worry about it.
What we should be worrying about is an asteroid from space, that's guaranteed to happen at some stage (could be in 5 minutes, could be in a 1000 years, but it will happen) and that will potentially wipe us out too. But you can't do anything about unknown asteroids from space, so I wouldn't worry about that either.
What we should be worrying about is an asteroid from space, that's guaranteed to happen at some stage (could be in 5 minutes, could be in a 1000 years, but it will happen) and that will potentially wipe us out too. But you can't do anything about unknown asteroids from space, so I wouldn't worry about that either.
This is the laziest sort of induction. Just because something happened in the past does not mean it will happen in the future. It doesn't even suggest that it's necessarily more likely really. If anything your argument here is against America being likely to use nukes again. After all they've been in multiple conflicts, including one that they lost, since without doing so, clearly operating under the assumptions of MAD.
It's really absolutely nothing like this at all.
...and randomly picking some other country makes more sense? LMFAO. If anything, my explanation seems more reasonable than just picking "insert nation here", out of a hat.
Is that what the other posters in this thread are doing? I think most of them have rationales. Yours is literally just, "thing happened in the past ergo it will happen in the future." Which simply isn't a good argument. It's the laziest sort of induction.
I don't see why you're LMFAOing considering you're just laughing at your own strawman. I said nothing of that sort.
Speaking of which Era, we are constantly working on stronger, more powerful armaments right? I mean I grasp the notion of precision > power in modern warfare but somewhere, some nation is working on some massively powerful nuclear weapon right?