Nuclear War. A question of if .. or a question of when?

[Twilight Hue]

Globally we're pretty much a nuclear capable planet now.

The situation with North Korea got me thinking, will there come a day when they will be actually be used?

 

[Mister Silver]

If people like Trump continue to find their way into political seats of power, nuclear war is inevitable.

 

[David1967]

Globally we're pretty much a nuclear capable planet now.

The situation with North Korea got me thinking, will there come a day when they will be actually be used?

Unfortunately I think yes. But I hope I'm wrong.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nuclear war seems avoidable. A nuclear explosion (via weapon) strikes me as likely at some point, be it terrorism, over-reaction, etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

Globally we're pretty much a nuclear capable planet now.

The situation with North Korea got me thinking, will there come a day when they will be actually be used?

Depends upon how wisely we chose our leaders.

 

[Sunstone]

I would love to believe our noble and esteemed species of spear-chucking super-chimpanzees has the wisdom to forever avoid a nuclear war. Yet, nearly all of recorded history shows we do not. I think a war is all but inevitable within the next 100 years.

 

[sun rise]

As a species what I see is gradual social evolution. What used to result in war, say the recent border kerfluffle between China and India, just does not result in war the way we used to see before the middle of the 20th century. It's slow evolution, to be sure, and there are a lot of small wars raging, but what I see is a lot of chest beating, jumping up-and-down doing monkey ook-ooking at each other, economic war and so forth but an absence of major conflicts.

I do agree that there might be one or two nukes detonated at some point, but if there are the horror at the result should end them being used.

 

[icehorse]

Slightly off topic, but what I'm hoping right now is that our generals have a plan to defang NK with minimal bloodshed. If they do, I think they better do it right quick.

 

[Laika]

Globally we're pretty much a nuclear capable planet now.

The situation with North Korea got me thinking, will there come a day when they will be actually be used?

When.

But I think that it a question of technology shifting the advantage from defensive to offensive warfare. In World War I the advantage eventually favoured "defensive" warfare, making it simply unprofitable to have a war. Initially people thought world war I would be over by Christians and they were wrong. Nuclear War and mutually assured destruction probably represent a strong advantage to defence. However, by World War II you had tanks, (much improved) air planes and other weaponry that made Blitzkrieg tactics possible and was much more favourable to offensive strategy. War became profitable again.

The hunch is that eventually there will be new technologies as the result of the militarisation of outer space and Missile defence systems to make offensive warfare profitable and advantageous again. Other technological changes may come into play such as the degree of automation of the armed forces. Maybe there will be some climate engineering technology that comes along and makes nuclear winter less likely. "Mutually Assured Destruction" is the result of a technical circumstance and will not hold indefinitely. When the technology exists, someone will come along to take advantage and redraw the map based on a new balance of power. Its a problem that someone will eventually come up with or attempt a solution at if the tools become avaliable.

As for the current stand-off between the US and North Korea, North Korea is behaving "rationally" in so far as it wants nuclear weapons to be able to defend itself and have its own deterrent. Kim Jong Un is not crazy but is taking a huge gamble so he's doesn't end up like Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The US is slowly exhausting all alternatives to a military invasion. Given that the technology does not favour anything resembling a decisive victory it is clearly "rational" for the US to withdraw and maybe have a new "Cold War" with North Korea as both military and diplomatic solutions will have been exhausted. I'm willing to bet that is what will happen. Steve Bannon is no longer a factor but he said that North Korea was a distraction as the real struggle is between the US and China in the long-run. That would fit into a new Cold War scenario.

The only unknown here is "Trump" but given that the Media have overplayed the "he's crazy" card to apply to pretty much everything, I really have to wonder if Trump really lacks the desire for self-preservation to actually push the button. Nuclear war is pretty simple; everybody dies. Corrupt and Cynical people are generally cowards and are pretty good at putting themselves first. Trump can and will say anything and he has made threats but he's also a whimp. If you have to give me odds, I'd say its 90% likely Trump will not use a military option. I can't rule it out though. We'll probably still be here in 2018.

 

[Jumi]

Probably, because people can't get over their differences in culture, sexuality and what have you. People don't care for knowledge, instead opting for the easy way out. We most easily see how strong a problem this is when people willfully ignore science in favor of revelation. Neither can they as a group rise above the occasion and forget past insults. Because of ignorance of the masses and the leaders, at the moment where we are headed is looking just as bad as when the Soviet Union was still alive. Heading from crisis to crisis, that's most of our history. Perhaps our "design" is flawed, despite all the good and inspiring things humans are capable of.

 

[HonestJoe]

I honestly don’t see it happening. I don’t believe any rational leader would use strategic nuclear weapons, even in direct retaliation because they would face massive political backlash from the consequences. I think a lot of people would still object to killing millions of innocent North Korean in response to the actions of their irrational dictator.

If some crazy leader use nuclear weapons, I’d expect there would be a world-wide conventional response and direct legal one for them personally but I wouldn’t expect a nuclear response. After all, the victims would have a very immediate and visceral understanding of the true consequences of taking such a step.

 

[Enoch07]

Globally we're pretty much a nuclear capable planet now.

The situation with North Korea got me thinking, will there come a day when they will be actually be used?

I don't think there will be a nuclear war.

North Korea nuclear missles will never reach america. Either because of the high rate of failure of their technology, or we simply "shoot" them down.

But IF it came to a nuclear war with Russia or China. It would probably be an extremely short lived war, a few hours tops, with few if any survivors at all. The whole planet would suffer either directly or indirectly, and the extinction of the human race would be assured.

 

[Polymath257]

Globally we're pretty much a nuclear capable planet now.

The situation with North Korea got me thinking, will there come a day when they will be actually be used?

Aug 6 and 9, 1945.

Never forget.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I don't think there will be a nuclear war.

North Korea nuclear missles will never reach america. Either because of the high rate of failure of their technology, or we simply "shoot" them down.

But IF it came to a nuclear war with Russia or China. It would probably be an extremely short lived war, a few hours tops, with few if any survivors at all. The whole planet would suffer either directly or indirectly, and the extinction of the human race would be assured.

The problem is we may not be dealing with a rational or even a sane man, no not Trump, Kim the bot fly Jong. If the North Koreans really wanted to shut down life as we know it in the USA or maybe even the world they now could. Of course such a move by Kim would be suicide for his country and destruction to most of the world via the USA's Triad.

One way for NK to make such a move would include sending a few surface ships and even a few of his old diesel electric subs near a few big city ports and detonate his H bombs. Worse he may first he may be able to send one or two ICBMs over the USA detonate them high in the atmosphere to create an EMP. Port cities would suffer 100% kill rate expanding as far as 10 to 20 miles depending on the yield of his H bombs. and a . Electrical power would fail, wall st and banks would shut down, all post 1950 vehicles shut down, along with anything that has an electronic piece in it, shut down. Food deliveries shut down, yeah total gashing of teeth and brutal, total grief would prevail for decades, maybe forever.

The latest bomb N Korea detonated was estimated to have a 15 to 300kt yield! For comparison the A-bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in WW2 was around 13 kt. If the above scenario was even a partially successful, well, as the worn out saying goes stick a fork in the USA because we are then DONE!

One thing no one would be poking fun at preppers who would ride the horrific events out in their fall out shelters packed with mountains of food and supplies, eh?

: {>

 

[Sanzbir]

Globally we're pretty much a nuclear capable planet now.

The situation with North Korea got me thinking, will there come a day when they will be actually be used?

This is a dance. North Korea is in a situation where they believe they cannot give up their rhetoric or their weapons, but they are pretty much aware that if they ever use them, they will be wiped off the face of the planet.

So I don't imagine North Korea will ever actually use their weapons, because in almost no time at all they would be defeated soundly.

But the North Koreans also believe they can't give up these weapons. They believe this likely because of the US's treatment of the Libyan dictator.

In that situation a dictator gave up their weapons of mass destruction and co-operated with the US, only to have the US support the overthrow of that dictator ending with that leader being killed via knife-sodomization.

North Korea has seen that event and thus thinks that disarming is also a recipe for their downfall and demise. Because of Libya's example, no other country with an ounce of sense will give up their WMD's. There is no benefit in doing so, only downsides.

So they are trying to delicately balance being violent and militarized while not actually escalating things to the point of war. North Korea is holding a gun to the head of South Korea and Japan. They know if they shoot their hostages, they will be shot in kind. But they also know if they drop the gun, they will also be shot. So they want to maintain the status quo of holding that gun for as long as they possibly can.

 

[Polymath257]

View attachment 18746



The problem is we may not be dealing with a rational or even a sane man, no not Trump, Kim the bot fly Jong. If the North Koreans really wanted to shut down life as we know it in the USA or maybe even the world they now could. Of course such a move by Kim would be suicide for his country and destruction to most of the world via the USA's Triad.

One way for NK to make such a move would include sending a few surface ships and even a few of his old diesel electric subs near a few big city ports and detonate his H bombs. Worse he may first he may be able to send one or two ICBMs over the USA detonate them high in the atmosphere to create an EMP. Port cities would suffer 100% kill rate expanding as far as 10 to 20 miles depending on the yield of his H bombs. and a . Electrical power would fail, wall st and banks would shut down, all post 1950 vehicles shut down, along with anything that has an electronic piece in it, shut down. Food deliveries shut down, yeah total gashing of teeth and brutal, total grief would prevail for decades, maybe forever.

The latest bomb N Korea detonated was estimated to have a 15 to 300kt yield! For comparison the A-bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in WW2 was around 13 kt. If the above scenario was even a partially successful, well, as the worn out saying goes stick a fork in the USA because we are then DONE!

One thing no one would be poking fun at preppers who would ride the horrific events out in their fall out shelters packed with mountains of food and supplies, eh?

: {>

A lot depends here on whether there is actually an H-bomb (unlikely given the yield) and how many such devices are delivered. A single H-bomb will destroy a city, but certainly *not* the whole US. Even one in orbit won't be able to provide an EMP enough to take out the whole grid. How that is being "DONE' is not at all clear. Nasty, yes. Very destructive, yes. Way too many people killed, definitely.

And let's face it. NK simply doesn't have that many nukes. Until this last one, the highest yield was about that of the Hiroshima bomb. This new one is an enhanced A-bomb, yes, but a typical H-bomb is still stronger by a factor of 7-10 (at least). So even if NK has, say, 50 A-bombs, that will take out 50 cities, mostly on the coast.

During the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union had *thousands* of H-bombs targeted on each other. Now, *that* was a risk of annihilation!