After UN comments, Business Insider speculates on what would happen in the chance of "nuclear war"

[PoetPhilosopher]

I find this article interesting: The UN has said nuclear war is 'back within the realm of possibility.' Here are the places in the US most likely to be hit in a nuclear attack.

And if it's correct it came from Business Insider, from what I've read, they lean left, but are seen as a credible reporter.

And frankly, I see their article in line with what I was thinking might happen in the event of nuclear war. Including the opposing country tending to possibly target military targets rather than civilians.

The article does seem to make clear that the threat of nuclear war among countries, however, is still "low" - while also suggesting that, of course, as we all know - it couldn't necessarily be entirely non-existent either. So "low" but not non-existent.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

They have command control from the air, probably of what would remain of what is in the air, and what is in the sea. So what would be the point of going for the land based silos? This thing we have going between us and them has to end, there has to be cease-fire over there.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

They have command control from the air, probably of what would remain of what is in the air, and what is in the sea. So what would be the point of going for the land based silos?

Maybe from the standpoint of thinking, "Land is an easy target, and it will still decrease military power"?

 

[Stevicus]

I find this article interesting: The UN has said nuclear war is 'back within the realm of possibility.' Here are the places in the US most likely to be hit in a nuclear attack.

And if it's correct it came from Business Insider, from what I've read, they lean left, but are seen as a credible reporter.

And frankly, I see their article in line with what I was thinking might happen in the event of nuclear war. Including the opposing country tending to possibly target military targets rather than civilians.

The article does seem to make clear that the threat of nuclear war among countries, however, is still "low" - while also suggesting that, of course, as we all know - it couldn't necessarily be entirely non-existent either. So "low" but not non-existent.

"Back within the realm of possibility"? It's always been within the realm of possibility for longer than most of us have been alive.

Frankly, I'm surprised we've lasted this long without a nuclear weapon being fired in anger. I was only moderately worried about an all-out nuclear war between the US and USSR during the Cold War, but after the Cold War was over, there were stories of economic privation in Russia and how easy it could be for terrorists to get fissionable materials to make a nuclear bomb - for the right price. I was concerned about the raised likelihood of such a weapon getting into the wrong hands - not necessarily a rogue government, but a radical terrorist group with nothing to lose.

Fortunately, though, we haven't seen any kind of nuclear terrorism yet.

Mutually Assured Destruction still seems an effective deterrent, even in a world with Putin and Kim Jong Un. After all, even they don't want to be wiped out in a nuclear war, regardless of how tough they might talk.

This is how many people envisioned how a nuclear war might be:

 

[Viker]

I just recently watched an oldie but goodie film called "Threads" which is as relevant now as it was in the 80s. I'm not sure that an all out nuke war is going to happen soon. But if there's still a bomb there's still a threat.

I live in a city surrounded by 'military' targets. A famous Army base (Fort Knox) down the road from me, military ordinance/equipment manufacturing sites and our local airport would/ has been used as a major air base in war. I didn't think much of all of that until watching that film recently.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

"Back within the realm of possibility"? It's always been within the realm of possibility for longer than most of us have been alive.

did you read the end of the business insider article? I don't believe they would just drop a few small nukes on our land-based silos, and then get wiped out in retaliation, and that would be it. I also wonder if the russian nukes are actually first-strike based anyway, if it's true they are mostly liquid-fueled as opposed to ours, which might mostly be solid fueled?

The only solution is probably some kind of globalization, to avoid polarization

 

[Viker]

"Back within the realm of possibility"? It's always been within the realm of possibility for longer than most of us have been alive.

Frankly, I'm surprised we've lasted this long without a nuclear weapon being fired in anger. I was only moderately worried about an all-out nuclear war between the US and USSR during the Cold War, but after the Cold War was over, there were stories of economic privation in Russia and how easy it could be for terrorists to get fissionable materials to make a nuclear bomb - for the right price. I was concerned about the raised likelihood of such a weapon getting into the wrong hands - not necessarily a rogue government, but a radical terrorist group with nothing to lose.

Fortunately, though, we haven't seen any kind of nuclear terrorism yet.

Mutually Assured Destruction still seems an effective deterrent, even in a world with Putin and Kim Jong Un. After all, even they don't want to be wiped out in a nuclear war, regardless of how tough they might talk.

This is how many people envisioned how a nuclear war might be:

This and the Brit counterpart are decent pieces to reflect upon.

 

[We Never Know]

I find this article interesting: The UN has said nuclear war is 'back within the realm of possibility.' Here are the places in the US most likely to be hit in a nuclear attack.

And if it's correct it came from Business Insider, from what I've read, they lean left, but are seen as a credible reporter.

And frankly, I see their article in line with what I was thinking might happen in the event of nuclear war. Including the opposing country tending to possibly target military targets rather than civilians.

The article does seem to make clear that the threat of nuclear war among countries, however, is still "low" - while also suggesting that, of course, as we all know - it couldn't necessarily be entirely non-existent either. So "low" but not non-existent.

It says "This map shows the essential points Russia would have to attack to wipe out the US's nuclear forces, according to Schwartz:"

But I don't see any map

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It says "This map shows the essential points Russia would have to attack to wipe out the US's nuclear forces, according to Schwartz:"

But I don't see any map

Try this:

The UN has said nuclear war is 'back within the realm of possibility.' Here are the places in the US most likely to be hit in a nuclear attack.

 

[We Never Know]

Try this:

The UN has said nuclear war is 'back within the realm of possibility.' Here are the places in the US most likely to be hit in a nuclear attack.

Thanks

 

[Stevicus]

did you read the end of the business insider article? I don't believe they would just drop a few small nukes on our land-based silos, and then get wiped out in retaliation, and that would be it. I also wonder if the russian nukes are actually first-strike based anyway, if it's true they are mostly liquid-fueled as opposed to ours, which might mostly be solid fueled?

The only solution is probably some kind of globalization, to avoid polarization

I'm not sure, although it's possible that the Russians may have neglected their nuclear forces to such a degree that many of their missiles don't work. I would think that any nuke can be utilized in a first strike, whether from sub, bomber, or land-based silo. If even 5-10% of their nuclear arsenal is still operational, it could do plenty of damage.

Globalization might work to avoid polarization, but only if all interested parties have an equal stake in the game. The lopsided disparities in power and wealth lead to the polarization where too many people have little to nothing left to lose.