Nuclear War and the Media

[Uraniun235]

Perhaps the perception is based around the feeling if one country launches, another will counter launch, and so on. So you're dealing with not just one nuke, you're dealing with several.

You're not dealing with one nuke, you're dealing with the entire arsenal. In a conflict with nuclear powers escalation is virtually inevitable.

I think he's talking about "if the US nuked x country, then y country would launch too, then every nation would launch nukes at each other! end of the world man!"

Now that is something I find irritating when I talk to people. Come on. Russia's going to nuke the US if India nukes Pakistan? China will nuke Russia if Russia nuked N. Korea? It's completely illogical.

[phongn]

There is a kernel of truth in that, however. During the Cold War, the USSR's attack plan was believed to involve most every other country of worth to ensure that everyone started off 'equal' in the postwar environment.

[Sea Skimmer]

Now that is something I find irritating when I talk to people. Come on. Russia's going to nuke the US if India nukes Pakistan? China will nuke Russia if Russia nuked N. Korea? It's completely illogical.

Its more complex then that, and you need one of the major power to touch of a chain reaction. But it could quite easily happen. Russia planning called for striking everyone including there own allies to ensure they had time to rebuild after the nuclear exchanges where completed.

Russia can't have its military wiped out while taking out America yet leaving China. So it has to hit China, and America likely would as well. It also needs to hit NATO, and of course prevent a new Polish Empire.

Mean while Israel has lost resources in the US it depends on, in the unlikely event it also isn't nuked by Russia. In which case a strike against the Arabs is its only hope to survive in any form.

Meanwhile China needs to worry about India and Pakistan since its being hit hard, and India and Pakistan have poor C4i and would be lucky to know whose attacking them. It's made even harder by the inbound Russian nukes, since any power retaining nuclear production capability would have a huge advantage post exchange. North Korea gets hit by just about everyone, since it's a threat to American, Russian and Chinese interests and would likely be racing south, since the ROK's economy just got knocked back 40 years because of destruction to other countries who will no longer be buying from them. Of course just about every other devoloped country gets nuked as well, since as mentioned they would be suddenly in a strong position post war.

Planning for a nuclear war didn't stop at how dead can we make our main enemey. The US and Russia had to take into account the rebuilding process, since much of there populations would be alive and being colonized by Argentina isn't fun.

[theski]

I feel low yield regional strikes could be limited to the area IE: PAK/India, unless it involves Israel or the Oil fields.. I think and Muslim/Israeli conflict goes global. To many intersections of power. I don't belive a limited nuke war could be fought by the greater powers.. The ballon goes up and stays up.. Thats all folks

[phongn]

I feel low yield regional strikes could be limited to the area IE: PAK/India, unless it involves Israel or the Oil fields.. I think and Muslim/Israeli conflict goes global. To many intersections of power. I don't belive a limited nuke war could be fought by the greater powers.. The ballon goes up and stays up.. Thats all folks

The only reason PAK/India would remain limited is because their arsenals are so small.

[Uraniun235]

There is a kernel of truth in that, however. During the Cold War, the USSR's attack plan was believed to involve most every other country of worth to ensure that everyone started off 'equal' in the postwar environment.

I understand that and Skimmer's post about a war between the major powers. But the people I talk to believe that if anyone, anywhere uses a nuclear bomb, it will (not might) spark off World War 3.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I understand that and Skimmer's post about a war between the major powers. But the people I talk to believe that if anyone, anywhere uses a nuclear bomb, it will (not might) spark off World War 3.

A regional nuclear war wouldn't necessarily escalate, but it depends on who's fighting who and what they hit.

[Col. Crackpot]

Yes, the effects of nuclear war have been greatly exagerrated.

Dutchess if that isn't worthy of the FUQ, then nothing is! Dalton, you got that one?

[Sea Skimmer]

There is a kernel of truth in that, however. During the Cold War, the USSR's attack plan was believed to involve most every other country of worth to ensure that everyone started off 'equal' in the postwar environment.

I understand that and Skimmer's post about a war between the major powers. But the people I talk to believe that if anyone, anywhere uses a nuclear bomb, it will (not might) spark off World War 3.

That is highly unlikely. You need a major power acting to trip off the chain reaction of chain reactions.

[Zoink]

80s movies are enough insight for me:

Nuclear war = Mad Max like world

[phongn]

Yes, the effects of nuclear war have been greatly exagerrated.

Dutchess if that isn't worthy of the FUQ, then nothing is! Dalton, you got that one?

It doesn't really sound like something for the FUQ.

[Col. Crackpot]

Yes, the effects of nuclear war have been greatly exagerrated.

Dutchess if that isn't worthy of the FUQ, then nothing is! Dalton, you got that one?

It doesn't really sound like something for the FUQ.

maybe i'm just sick and evil and find it amusing....

[phongn]

I think you're alone in that thought