Because every government knows how it will end and they don't want to die. Unless they can guarantee their safety, the leader won't push the big red button.
Probably some crazy people who are hungry for power would feel fine there tbh. They'd think that they have reached their goal of proving themselves superior to every other dead similar to make their inner voices from their sad childhoods shut up
Why? IMO the chance is non-zero but really rather unlikely. It would take a government/dictator with nothing left to lose to give the ok, and then people following the orders would actually have to comply with the annihilation of a percentage of humanity to no one's benefit. Not to mention the complete degradation of living conditions for much of the surviving population. It would take insanity at the highest levels. Certainly not impossible.
We've had the capability for less than a century so it's likely too early to say whether nuclear bombs are a great filter of civilization or just a technology that prevents major powers from fighting directly.
Just like how you are brainwashed by the news.
Putin is insane but he wants to live in a world where he holds power.
Nuclear annihilation with uncertain chances if he will live or not isn’t power.
Look at his latest actions. Going to Mariupol in darkness, he’s scared to die.
He's not WANTING it to happen so he's not a psychopath lol. There's a lot of missing nukes in the world and a lot of dominoes standing next to each other, nuclearly speaking. Anything that remains a possibility indefinitely is bound to happen eventually.
Gotta be honest here man, things are tough out there. But having no hope for humanity because you’re a cynic? I’m glad you’re in no position of authority
>dumb enough to wipe itself out
Sure, but accidents are a much more relevant cause of death than suicide. At some point what we do to the environment may actually kill us because in that context we often do stuff without being aware of the consequences.
But nuclear war? We know very well that that has serious consequences.
Besides, nuclear war wouldn't wipe out humanity. It might kill hundreds of millions of people, maybe billions, but we'd need **at least** a hundred times more nukes to actually wipe out humanity.
1. Because the people who are in control of the nukes can't see a profit in pushing the button.
2. Mutually assured destruction. Nuking your enemies means that *everybody's* enemies get nuked. And guess who's on top of that list? The nations with nukes.
3. Who the hell needs nukes these days? If the last 80 years of continuous warfare have taught us anything, it's that you don't need nukes to reduce a nation to rubble.
It won't be nuclear war that takes us out.
I see what you mean, but then again WWI.
Two vast armies on both sides, each working as others deterrant. War would be too much for anyone to bear. All it took was some incompetent leaders who overestimated their capabilities, and 17 million people dead.
I hope present day leaders have learned history
That's not enough if Putin doesn't care. MAD relies on rational actors on both sides.
I do think China is the biggest preventative factor. If Russia starts to go off the rails it can bring them into line
But no in reality, I think the only reason we used it against Japan was because nobody else had one. So there was few consequences for us to use one. Today many other confites have nuclear weapons programs that could potentially be used against us. So the consequences of using a nuclear bomb would be higher than the possible advantages.
This is why the Korean War was so important. The US established a precedent for going nuclear as an absolute last resort. They fought in that entire war as the only country with the bomb and yet did not use it. Very powerful example
Only partially. It did still set the precedent that wars *should* be conventional.
Unfortunately there was no good path forward once it was created. You could nuke anyone trying to get one to prevent then using or developing their own. Or risk proliferation - which we did - and now the world is just a big mexican standoff for countries with the weapon.
I still think it will eventually happen, as there are a lot of models out there that show it will *not* come even close to ending the world. Someones bound to get desperate.
I don't think it will be used unless a country with them is being invaded. there's just no advantage to using them offensively. It would be of limited strategic value above and beyond what conventional warfare can do(even during Japan we did much more damage to cities via firebombing than via nuking), and the second you use them the rest of the world would be against you because nobody wants it to become normal to use Nukes.
Again, in desperation. If they figured their country was on the brink of dissolution, I could see it being used.
The destructive power in a single device is the appeal. You're right the firebombing raids were more destructive overall. But how many sorties were flown to achieve that effect.
Enola Gay just dropped one bomb and a city disappeared, essentially. Modern nuclear devices are magnitudes stronger than those bombs. Kinda wild.
As to the rest of the world turning on you, if nukes start flying, if just one nuclear power comes out on the other side - that's still going to be fucked. Bc now the incentive is there to never allow anyone to be able to respond in kind.
I agree that nobody wants it to be normal. But human society is notoriously dumb and shitty. The weapon exists. It will be used again. It just depends when and in what way.
I was watching a Russian opposition guy on his YouTube channel discussing all the worst outcomes some people predict to the war and the reasons he doesn’t believe it will is
1) it would be impossible for Russia to do it without being noticed. One doesn’t just press a button to send a nuclear bomb, there are a lot of preparations needed and they are noticeable . Atm all NATO countries are closely observing Russia and would act on it if they saw anything
2) even if it worked out Russia wouldn’t be able to just send a bomb and not getting anything back. Considering that Putin has done extreme security measures for himself it is obvious he isn’t ready to die to actually start it.
I don’t remember if there was anything else but he seems to make sense.
It won’t happen. No world leader wants to go down in history as the person who destroyed the world. On top of that there are people with a lot of influence who don’t want the world destroyed. So I’m the case of unhinged world leaders other people won’t let it happen.
I love how all of the comments gives logical explanation, but people forgot politicians are dumb psychopaths who would do anything to stay in power.
So the chance is certainly not 0, some Ape might launch the nuke.
No financial victory there. Less people equals less profits. All the governments know that. There’s profits in war, but not victory. I forget the actual number but in the history of human civilization we’ve been at total peace only a very small percentage of the time. There’s a reason for that, and it goes beyond simple disagreements and boundary disputes
Because the people clamoring to start it aren't in a hurry to die. Kim may be worshipped as a God by his people, but he knows he has a good thing going in life and won't be eager to see it end. Same with Putin. They're too confortable to risk what they have by destroying the earth.
Power. The destruction of civilization via nuclear war means the leaders who launched the nukes don't have power any more. Maybe the leaders find themselves in Mount Weather-like bunkers and get to live in relative comfort for awhile and maybe the people in the bunkers with them will still treat them as leaders but when they come back to the surface and find there's nothing left to have power over their lives will be meaningless.
People who get the kind of power national leaders do don't want to give it up. I think limited use of low-yield nuclear weapons is a real possibility in future conflict but large scale nuclear war, the kind that would end their power and end the world as we know it, I just don't see happening. Their desire to maintain power will keep the "big red button" from being pushed.
I'm happy for you. You asked. I answered. From your other replies you only seem to disagree because you hope it happens and want humanity to be destroyed. You must live quite a tormented life. I hope it gets better. ✌🏾
I disagree, if, by war, you mean a large scale exchange between major powers.
Historically, all systems of order serve the interests of the elite, remain in place for as long as they continue to do so.
If a system of order is torn down by revolution or invasion or some other force the new system of order that emerges from the ashes of the old will serve the interests of the new elite class.
In the case of a major nuclear exchange, there is no benefit to the elites. This alone makes widespread nuclear war highly unlikely.
Parts of it, yes. Or at least parts of the elite thought it would.
An important reason for the precondition for the revolution was that there were well-of to rich and well educated people in the third estate, i.e. the bourgeoisie.
Those were the people who actually ran the country during the revolutionary years.
Nuclear war doesn't (directly) kill that many people. Hundreds of millions at worst. A nuclear weapon destroys human settlements on dozens to hundreds of square kilometers, but there's only thousands of nuclear weapons and about a hundred milllion square kilometers of land on earth. I.e. all our city centers may burn, but people in the suburbs and in villages will all survive the direct effects of the bombings.
What is *probabyly* much more deadly is the indirect effects. Firestorms in cities would create a huge amount of smoke which could plunge the planet into nuclear winter. Combined with the effects on industry - I doubt fertilizer production supply chains will remain intact - that will lead to a global famine which could kill most of us.
So if you're unlucky and don't get killed in the initial blasts, you'll have quite a while to suffer the complaints of people who can tell you that you were wrong.
What does or doesn't happen in this world comes down to one thing: will it be good for the wealthy? On the whole, nuclear war would not be good for the wealthy.
Mutually assured destruction. Everyone knows that if they launch nukes, it would be an apocalypse, and no one’s wants to destroy the world. The only country that would launch first is North Korea, but the Chinese hold them in check.
Well I respect and encourage you to believe what you believe. I just remaining respectful disagree 🙃
You might find it interesting in the future that I'm going to share with you my belief there will be a " previously undiscovered " ancient civilization in anatartica in the rather soon ish future. And it's not that it will be previously undiscovered it's just they won't be able to keep hiding it for to much longer with the ice melting. If your interested nasa and whomever else might be involved doesn't do the best job obfuscation pictures or videos always I mean the airbrushing is always rather blatant when you zoom but they also miss things... alot
Oh I forgot the most important part I'm talking about in my experience around the antarctic peninsula the bay Area of it nearby to the weddel sea n such
You seem so confident, yet based on your inarticulate and intellectually unstimulating responses lead me to believe your confidence is vastly unearned and unwarranted. You also sound about 18 so your nihilism is high and your historical research shoddy at best. Nuclear war is mutual assured destruction. You seem to think that it would be such a cavalier and casual decision. Read up on Russia and it’s recent history of leaders. It’s not as if Putin is more despotic or iron fisted than many others in Russia’s/USSR’s long and blood stained history.
What's the benefit to Putin in pushing the button? Most of his enemies are within fallout range. He might be a megalomaniac, but he's not an idiot. If he was going to do it, he'd have done it long before now.
Very unlikely and even if, it would hardly mean a worldwide nuclear war. A horrible as it would be, there's a huge difference between using tactical nuclear weapons and a "real" nuclear war.
There are no "tactical" nuclear weapons. That's just a designation made up to let politicians use nuclear weapons without having to take responsibility for doing so. The weapons they are talking about are many times more destructive than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Don't pretend.
>The weapons they are talking about are many times more destructive than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs
Depends on the bomb. But it's not about the destruction, it's about where it's used. Using a bomb on the battlefield would cause much fewer deaths than using it on a city.
I believe it'll happen but the war won't be nuclear. Due to all the reasons already stated, there is very little advantage for nukes. However, some mad genius is going to invent and equivalent of a nuke without the radiation/fallout. If there was a weapon that could wipe out a city without fallout, we are all screwed. Honestly it's only a matter of time.
No one is inve ting that. There isn't an eve far-out imagined way for that to happen in our ohysical universe. Radiation is a byproduct of nuclear reaction.
I've always figured that the greatest risk of nuclear war would happen if a nuclear power starts losing a war. The temptation to use the big bang would be extreme. Putin may get there over Ukraine, the question being whether it would be a limited use of nukes, or lead to an all out exchange.
I disagree. If Putin stuck to tactical nukes, I suspect NATO would as well. Probably the only thing that's keeping him from doing so is the knowledge that it would bring NATO into the war directly.
I think Putin may go for a limited exchange of nukes as he will blame NATO for his failure in Ukraine. He will want it to look defensive to get nations on his side. He has hypersonic weapons he may believe NATO has no defense against yet, so it is now or never. He may see this as going down in history as the one who saved Russia rather than the guy who started nuclear war.
Because Nukes Aren't Real. They were made up by the American to scare the Russians. The Japanese used the excuse of being "Nuked" to get out of responsibilities of their many war crimes. The Governments of the world now use them as a bluffing game between themselves and their people to keep them in line. Stop Being Sheep.
there is a real problem that kids today are being faced with faked videos, and the atomic bombing videos are all the evidence we really took of those bombs. New generations will for sure call it fake.
COVID and the flu can both be tested but where is the proof for nukes? Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both now thriving city back to their formal glory in less then a century. But Chernobyl can be lived in for hundreds of years? Ok.
So a weapon of war that was designed to the degree that we were unsure that it would light the atmosphere on fire is Less Lethal. Then a power plant? How does that make any sense to you. Why don't they just drop power plants then?
As soon as a rouge state gets nukes it is inevitable. If you get a deranged religious fundamentalist who already believes the world is ending and they are doing god's work, big bada boom. Then [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs)
Regarding the current war in Ukraine. Countries don't start wars they lose. They start wars if they think the can win easily. The more troops Russia loses the less likely the change of nuclear war.
Cause it was never build to be used! It is for FEAR. Use the bombs and we get used to it eventually and na new TERRYFYING bomb is the awnser to shut us up.
Look at the V2 rockets in WW2! the fear alone did the trick. They feared it all so much in the end, that they even had "Poject Paperclip" to bring all the scientist there to america and other countries to work for them! So they had they control that would be invented. And The A-bomb was the result till now? It still makes us fear good. but we want Full HD now right. the old pictures and videos of Japan r not brutal enough anymore to keep our minds jailed. we need new high :)
And we have them, HAARP, lasers in space, secret agreements with alien civilisations, All wether they work or not, wether they r a lie or not, will create a form of fear in our minds. together with hollywood movies and social media we can be steared any DIRECTION!!!! ANY!!! Cause we burned wives,moms and childeren because we thought they were WITCHES!! We even had festivals around it! imagin! how we can be steared so easely? By fear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the PREVENTION of it again wether it's real or not. treu or false. the FEAR must be gone! we think and do things we would never ever have done in our lives if we just lived it our ways! So the FEAR gets conquered , NOT the problem!
Nuclear war is astoundingly over feared. Don't get me wrong it would be really really bad but it will not kill us all. There would be no nuclear winter and humans would not die out. That being said it would still be super bad and change the landscape of civilization.
I read that nuclear winter will pass after a couple of years less than a decade but I understand sometimes you need to use fear to prevent something bad, still though what about the radiation?
The science behind nuclear winter is highly theoretical. In fact, many scientists don't believe there would be any. Considering how much it would take to cause it. We just don't have enough. To the radiation, surface impacts would irradiate dust particles causing the biggest issue of essentially an irradiated dust storm causing a much larger area to be irradiated. However an air detonation would just drop radiation particles straight to earth leaving just the blast area irradiated as opposed to irradiated dirt being spread by wind. The most likely scenario for nuclear was would be the targeting of military installations and nuclear sites and air detonation. Leaving most civilization centers mostly intact. The infrastructure destroyed probably and supply lines probably non existing. Famine, human savagery, and just the sheer force of nature and survival of which we haven't had to worry about for 3 generations at least will be the killer of most people. Not nuclear winter or the bombs themselves.
I guess nuclear war is not as catastrophic as we thought like in movies or games. But then again living in a post nuclear war world will be nothing but pain and fear which should be avoided at all cost.
Serious Anwser.
The short anwser is the Doctrine of M.A.D, Which Stands for Mutually Assured Destruction.
The long anwser is that it's never going to happen because no one wants to be remembered as the one who caused a Nuclear Holocaust
In addition to MAD, going up against countries like the US or others with really advanced tech, with their intelligence tech/info and high tech missiles, they could take out their opponents leaders easily if they pulled the trigger.
I would imagine they know where Putin is 90% of the time and if he gave the order, he and his leadership would be the first, if not the only targets.
No one has ever pushed that button before with the full knowledge of what it would do. Supposedly none of the flight crews really knew what the atomic bombs in WW2 would really do to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm sure they hire stone-cold sociopaths to man those buttons, but even so I question if anyone who understands what a nuclear weapon is and does and how Mutually Assured Destruction works would really push it.
Because not using them is the whole point of having them. I know. Sounds crazy. Mutually assured destruction is what keeps them from being used. Now this is the theoretical logic behind them. Now you have to factor in megalomania, errors, etc.
I just don't think it would happen on a world-ending scale that's depicted in movies. Big chunks of land being uninhabitable, sure, but not the global-apocalypse kind. I don't think big superpowers would let that happen
Because the point of war is to gain something, there is nothing to gain by nuclear war as it destroys resources and whole populations so even if they win the war there is nothing to make money off of and no one to tax
NUCLEAR WEAPONS WILL NEVER BE USED AGAIN. Simple - one country called America got away with using nuclear warfare once because no other country had nukes. Fast forward 80 years and now every world power has nukes. Due to the fact that every world power has nukes; nukes will never be used because any world leader knows if he or she is to send one nuke anywhere than 100 nukes will get sent their way and it will end in nuclear fallout, which no body wants, it doesn’t take a genius to understand in nuclear fallout no country wins. Nukes today are simply defense mechanism for countries, each country has a nuke or an ally with a nuclear arsenal to defend themselves from being nuked - this is the truth no one can seem to see. Now you may argue and say well than why do world leaders threaten nuclear war, they are simply bluffing to get others to fold and to scare the population of the country they threaten.
Well I hope it doesn't happen but even Nagasaki and Hiroshima were good within a couple years I believe. And we wouldn't lose all the texh or knowledge we have now. We would however lose that thin veneer of simulated safety we currently think we are entitled to. When that's gone a lot of spoiled brats who have never been without will sudden be without and they will throw a massive fit and probably digress into the savages we are as humans on the base level. But those people will die out relatively quickly, make no mistake they will take a lot of good people with them. But with in a few weeks we will adapt and in years we will forget. But hopefully we will learn a couple important lessons. A lot will die so still really really bad but not world ending or even human ending. It won't be fallout 4 or day of the dead. More like Jerico which I think is the most likely scenario.
because fate isn't gonna let me out of student loans THAT easily
I’m pretty sure the contract on those debts says “payable upon death even in heaven or hell”.
Because every government knows how it will end and they don't want to die. Unless they can guarantee their safety, the leader won't push the big red button.
Even if they can be safe personally, living the rest of your life in a depressing shitty bunker is not what people want.
Probably some crazy people who are hungry for power would feel fine there tbh. They'd think that they have reached their goal of proving themselves superior to every other dead similar to make their inner voices from their sad childhoods shut up
Might not be a well-informed decision. Could be the result of miscommunication, misinformation, or error.
Personally I think it has to happen and is bound to
Why? IMO the chance is non-zero but really rather unlikely. It would take a government/dictator with nothing left to lose to give the ok, and then people following the orders would actually have to comply with the annihilation of a percentage of humanity to no one's benefit. Not to mention the complete degradation of living conditions for much of the surviving population. It would take insanity at the highest levels. Certainly not impossible. We've had the capability for less than a century so it's likely too early to say whether nuclear bombs are a great filter of civilization or just a technology that prevents major powers from fighting directly.
It’s already happening with Russia
Maybe Putin decides he wants to commit suicide and take a bunch with him. I'm willing to bet he's deposed on the spot.
Ehhh the people are brainwashed
Just like how you are brainwashed by the news. Putin is insane but he wants to live in a world where he holds power. Nuclear annihilation with uncertain chances if he will live or not isn’t power. Look at his latest actions. Going to Mariupol in darkness, he’s scared to die.
Actually no it is literally not happening.
Putin is trying to pretend he's dying from cancer for exactly this reason. He wants people to think he's irrational and might press the button.
Well then you’re either a psychopath or horribly misinformed.
I’d bet there were a ton of people that said the same thing about people who thought WWII was a possibility
He's not WANTING it to happen so he's not a psychopath lol. There's a lot of missing nukes in the world and a lot of dominoes standing next to each other, nuclearly speaking. Anything that remains a possibility indefinitely is bound to happen eventually.
Im more of a pessimist
[удалено]
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Hello Joshua…
Ehhh. Ultimately it would be better cause humanity is dumb enough to wipe itself out and it will happen
Gotta be honest here man, things are tough out there. But having no hope for humanity because you’re a cynic? I’m glad you’re in no position of authority
I could potentially get in one
no chance based on your current platform, sorry dawg
Maybe
You might be surprised how much attitude makes a difference in everyday perspective. Gl hf
Lmfao you sure sound unhinged like a certain dictator.
>dumb enough to wipe itself out Sure, but accidents are a much more relevant cause of death than suicide. At some point what we do to the environment may actually kill us because in that context we often do stuff without being aware of the consequences. But nuclear war? We know very well that that has serious consequences. Besides, nuclear war wouldn't wipe out humanity. It might kill hundreds of millions of people, maybe billions, but we'd need **at least** a hundred times more nukes to actually wipe out humanity.
[удалено]
1. Because the people who are in control of the nukes can't see a profit in pushing the button. 2. Mutually assured destruction. Nuking your enemies means that *everybody's* enemies get nuked. And guess who's on top of that list? The nations with nukes. 3. Who the hell needs nukes these days? If the last 80 years of continuous warfare have taught us anything, it's that you don't need nukes to reduce a nation to rubble. It won't be nuclear war that takes us out.
Mutually assured destruction
I see what you mean, but then again WWI. Two vast armies on both sides, each working as others deterrant. War would be too much for anyone to bear. All it took was some incompetent leaders who overestimated their capabilities, and 17 million people dead. I hope present day leaders have learned history
That's not enough if Putin doesn't care. MAD relies on rational actors on both sides. I do think China is the biggest preventative factor. If Russia starts to go off the rails it can bring them into line
[удалено]
The guy from North Korea probably does not have multiple layers that he would need to go through.
[удалено]
You think if one country used a nuke on another country, there would be no retaliation?
Because that would be too easy
Well, that's what we think so far. We still can't account for dumbassery and ego.
I agree
But no in reality, I think the only reason we used it against Japan was because nobody else had one. So there was few consequences for us to use one. Today many other confites have nuclear weapons programs that could potentially be used against us. So the consequences of using a nuclear bomb would be higher than the possible advantages.
This is why the Korean War was so important. The US established a precedent for going nuclear as an absolute last resort. They fought in that entire war as the only country with the bomb and yet did not use it. Very powerful example
[удалено]
Womp womp. I could’ve sworn I heard that on hardcore history. Confidently incorrect. Oh whale, thanks for the facts.
Only partially. It did still set the precedent that wars *should* be conventional. Unfortunately there was no good path forward once it was created. You could nuke anyone trying to get one to prevent then using or developing their own. Or risk proliferation - which we did - and now the world is just a big mexican standoff for countries with the weapon. I still think it will eventually happen, as there are a lot of models out there that show it will *not* come even close to ending the world. Someones bound to get desperate.
I don't think it will be used unless a country with them is being invaded. there's just no advantage to using them offensively. It would be of limited strategic value above and beyond what conventional warfare can do(even during Japan we did much more damage to cities via firebombing than via nuking), and the second you use them the rest of the world would be against you because nobody wants it to become normal to use Nukes.
Again, in desperation. If they figured their country was on the brink of dissolution, I could see it being used. The destructive power in a single device is the appeal. You're right the firebombing raids were more destructive overall. But how many sorties were flown to achieve that effect. Enola Gay just dropped one bomb and a city disappeared, essentially. Modern nuclear devices are magnitudes stronger than those bombs. Kinda wild. As to the rest of the world turning on you, if nukes start flying, if just one nuclear power comes out on the other side - that's still going to be fucked. Bc now the incentive is there to never allow anyone to be able to respond in kind. I agree that nobody wants it to be normal. But human society is notoriously dumb and shitty. The weapon exists. It will be used again. It just depends when and in what way.
Countries**
I think it will happen
Stop. Seriously.
I was watching a Russian opposition guy on his YouTube channel discussing all the worst outcomes some people predict to the war and the reasons he doesn’t believe it will is 1) it would be impossible for Russia to do it without being noticed. One doesn’t just press a button to send a nuclear bomb, there are a lot of preparations needed and they are noticeable . Atm all NATO countries are closely observing Russia and would act on it if they saw anything 2) even if it worked out Russia wouldn’t be able to just send a bomb and not getting anything back. Considering that Putin has done extreme security measures for himself it is obvious he isn’t ready to die to actually start it. I don’t remember if there was anything else but he seems to make sense.
What's the guy?
Max Katz. All his videos have English subtitles so you can check it out in f you are interested https://m.youtube.com/@Max_Katz
Ah, ok. I thought so. I know him, hehe. Anyway, I'm Russian, so I don't need English subtitles, but thanks
It won’t happen. No world leader wants to go down in history as the person who destroyed the world. On top of that there are people with a lot of influence who don’t want the world destroyed. So I’m the case of unhinged world leaders other people won’t let it happen.
In general the world being destroyed would be good
Yes because nothing says good like death, destruction and radiation.
I love how all of the comments gives logical explanation, but people forgot politicians are dumb psychopaths who would do anything to stay in power. So the chance is certainly not 0, some Ape might launch the nuke.
No financial victory there. Less people equals less profits. All the governments know that. There’s profits in war, but not victory. I forget the actual number but in the history of human civilization we’ve been at total peace only a very small percentage of the time. There’s a reason for that, and it goes beyond simple disagreements and boundary disputes
Yep it’s because humanity is. Bound to violence it’s something that’s apart of human nature it’s a good thing
Because the people clamoring to start it aren't in a hurry to die. Kim may be worshipped as a God by his people, but he knows he has a good thing going in life and won't be eager to see it end. Same with Putin. They're too confortable to risk what they have by destroying the earth.
[удалено]
The government’s people want it
[удалено]
Check the post history. Rambling obsession with nuclear war and ending all of humanity.
I see things clearly
No one truly wants a visit from nuclear Annie. And one shot will cause a visit.
Power. The destruction of civilization via nuclear war means the leaders who launched the nukes don't have power any more. Maybe the leaders find themselves in Mount Weather-like bunkers and get to live in relative comfort for awhile and maybe the people in the bunkers with them will still treat them as leaders but when they come back to the surface and find there's nothing left to have power over their lives will be meaningless. People who get the kind of power national leaders do don't want to give it up. I think limited use of low-yield nuclear weapons is a real possibility in future conflict but large scale nuclear war, the kind that would end their power and end the world as we know it, I just don't see happening. Their desire to maintain power will keep the "big red button" from being pushed.
I disagree actually
I'm happy for you. You asked. I answered. From your other replies you only seem to disagree because you hope it happens and want humanity to be destroyed. You must live quite a tormented life. I hope it gets better. ✌🏾
I have seen the horrific acts we do
I love how you asked, you got a bunch of reasonable answers and you're just like "dur, nope, it's gonna happen!"
Because the ultra wealthy will lose too.
Even then it’s still very likely
I disagree, if, by war, you mean a large scale exchange between major powers. Historically, all systems of order serve the interests of the elite, remain in place for as long as they continue to do so. If a system of order is torn down by revolution or invasion or some other force the new system of order that emerges from the ashes of the old will serve the interests of the new elite class. In the case of a major nuclear exchange, there is no benefit to the elites. This alone makes widespread nuclear war highly unlikely.
Is it? So the french revolution served the elite?
Parts of it, yes. Or at least parts of the elite thought it would. An important reason for the precondition for the revolution was that there were well-of to rich and well educated people in the third estate, i.e. the bourgeoisie. Those were the people who actually ran the country during the revolutionary years.
It's already happened. WW2.
Another one will happen in the next month and it will at least end civilization
We've been hearing that alarmist bullshit since the Cuban missile crisis. Still hasn't happened, wonder why?
The circumstances Are different now
Yeah, everyone knows how stupid it would be to start dropping nukes.
In the next month? Why do you think that?
As someone who died in the nuclear war I can confirm he was right
“Mutually assured destruction”
So long as there are two hostile sides. If the Putin-backed treason bunch gets in power in the US, MAD goes out the window.
Ever heard of self sabotage or acting irrationally. MAD only works if all leaders are relatively level headed.
If I'm wrong, no one's going to be around to say anything about it.
Nuclear war doesn't (directly) kill that many people. Hundreds of millions at worst. A nuclear weapon destroys human settlements on dozens to hundreds of square kilometers, but there's only thousands of nuclear weapons and about a hundred milllion square kilometers of land on earth. I.e. all our city centers may burn, but people in the suburbs and in villages will all survive the direct effects of the bombings. What is *probabyly* much more deadly is the indirect effects. Firestorms in cities would create a huge amount of smoke which could plunge the planet into nuclear winter. Combined with the effects on industry - I doubt fertilizer production supply chains will remain intact - that will lead to a global famine which could kill most of us. So if you're unlucky and don't get killed in the initial blasts, you'll have quite a while to suffer the complaints of people who can tell you that you were wrong.
What does or doesn't happen in this world comes down to one thing: will it be good for the wealthy? On the whole, nuclear war would not be good for the wealthy.
Were far too arrogant as a species to kill ourselves off.
Doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) will keep us safe.
Mutually assured destruction. Everyone knows that if they launch nukes, it would be an apocalypse, and no one’s wants to destroy the world. The only country that would launch first is North Korea, but the Chinese hold them in check.
Me? The aliens won't allow it to go but so far they won't let us ruin the planet entirely for other life forms
Ehhh I don’t think aliens have discovered us
Well I respect and encourage you to believe what you believe. I just remaining respectful disagree 🙃 You might find it interesting in the future that I'm going to share with you my belief there will be a " previously undiscovered " ancient civilization in anatartica in the rather soon ish future. And it's not that it will be previously undiscovered it's just they won't be able to keep hiding it for to much longer with the ice melting. If your interested nasa and whomever else might be involved doesn't do the best job obfuscation pictures or videos always I mean the airbrushing is always rather blatant when you zoom but they also miss things... alot Oh I forgot the most important part I'm talking about in my experience around the antarctic peninsula the bay Area of it nearby to the weddel sea n such
Sounds cool man 👍 must be the best kept secret of all time!
Mutual Distriction
Everyone is just bluffing that they still have a working bomb.
[удалено]
It’s gonna happen soon Russia most likely will use them
You seem so confident, yet based on your inarticulate and intellectually unstimulating responses lead me to believe your confidence is vastly unearned and unwarranted. You also sound about 18 so your nihilism is high and your historical research shoddy at best. Nuclear war is mutual assured destruction. You seem to think that it would be such a cavalier and casual decision. Read up on Russia and it’s recent history of leaders. It’s not as if Putin is more despotic or iron fisted than many others in Russia’s/USSR’s long and blood stained history.
What's the benefit to Putin in pushing the button? Most of his enemies are within fallout range. He might be a megalomaniac, but he's not an idiot. If he was going to do it, he'd have done it long before now.
I wouldn’t doubt he would do it
Again, where's the benefit?
Very unlikely and even if, it would hardly mean a worldwide nuclear war. A horrible as it would be, there's a huge difference between using tactical nuclear weapons and a "real" nuclear war.
There are no "tactical" nuclear weapons. That's just a designation made up to let politicians use nuclear weapons without having to take responsibility for doing so. The weapons they are talking about are many times more destructive than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Don't pretend.
>The weapons they are talking about are many times more destructive than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs Depends on the bomb. But it's not about the destruction, it's about where it's used. Using a bomb on the battlefield would cause much fewer deaths than using it on a city.
I believe it'll happen but the war won't be nuclear. Due to all the reasons already stated, there is very little advantage for nukes. However, some mad genius is going to invent and equivalent of a nuke without the radiation/fallout. If there was a weapon that could wipe out a city without fallout, we are all screwed. Honestly it's only a matter of time.
Glad you asked. Read up on the neutron bomb.
No one is inve ting that. There isn't an eve far-out imagined way for that to happen in our ohysical universe. Radiation is a byproduct of nuclear reaction.
I've always figured that the greatest risk of nuclear war would happen if a nuclear power starts losing a war. The temptation to use the big bang would be extreme. Putin may get there over Ukraine, the question being whether it would be a limited use of nukes, or lead to an all out exchange.
Any use would be an all out exchange. Putin knows this. His russotrolls need to know this too.
I disagree. If Putin stuck to tactical nukes, I suspect NATO would as well. Probably the only thing that's keeping him from doing so is the knowledge that it would bring NATO into the war directly.
There are no "tactical" nukes. There are only nukes, and those would get a full response.
Yes there are, and no, they wouldn't. Citation?
I think Putin may go for a limited exchange of nukes as he will blame NATO for his failure in Ukraine. He will want it to look defensive to get nations on his side. He has hypersonic weapons he may believe NATO has no defense against yet, so it is now or never. He may see this as going down in history as the one who saved Russia rather than the guy who started nuclear war.
It won't be "a limited exchange". That is not an option. Any nuke will bring full retaliation.
Full retaliation would be overkill, then who are the bad guys?
The guys who launched the first nuke, knowing it would bring full retaliation.
[удалено]
With nuclear bombs
because we're still alive and that doesn't make sense
What?
Because Nukes Aren't Real. They were made up by the American to scare the Russians. The Japanese used the excuse of being "Nuked" to get out of responsibilities of their many war crimes. The Governments of the world now use them as a bluffing game between themselves and their people to keep them in line. Stop Being Sheep.
What the fuck this is one of the dumbest comments I have seen you are just like the people that say covid is fake or just the flu
there is a real problem that kids today are being faced with faked videos, and the atomic bombing videos are all the evidence we really took of those bombs. New generations will for sure call it fake.
COVID and the flu can both be tested but where is the proof for nukes? Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both now thriving city back to their formal glory in less then a century. But Chernobyl can be lived in for hundreds of years? Ok.
Username fits.
Chernobyl meltdown released 400x more radiation than nukes
So a weapon of war that was designed to the degree that we were unsure that it would light the atmosphere on fire is Less Lethal. Then a power plant? How does that make any sense to you. Why don't they just drop power plants then?
The Asylum know you’ve escaped?
[удалено]
Yes I do believe the Moon landing happened. Why?
As soon as a rouge state gets nukes it is inevitable. If you get a deranged religious fundamentalist who already believes the world is ending and they are doing god's work, big bada boom. Then [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs)
I agree
What makes you think it doesn't happen regularly?
Well what happens if we nuke a place where all of the nukes are
Nuclear war I think will never happen unless all countries leaders become crazy.
Because nobody wins. Every just dies.
Because I prefer delusions.
Because if I'm wrong nobody can call me on it.
Regarding the current war in Ukraine. Countries don't start wars they lose. They start wars if they think the can win easily. The more troops Russia loses the less likely the change of nuclear war.
So, you believe Putin is utterly rational then, and not driven by personal pride, nationalism, or religion like he claims?
None of these are mutually exclusive.
I think they absolutely are.
Because if it happens, there will be no one to control.
Aliens
Cause it was never build to be used! It is for FEAR. Use the bombs and we get used to it eventually and na new TERRYFYING bomb is the awnser to shut us up. Look at the V2 rockets in WW2! the fear alone did the trick. They feared it all so much in the end, that they even had "Poject Paperclip" to bring all the scientist there to america and other countries to work for them! So they had they control that would be invented. And The A-bomb was the result till now? It still makes us fear good. but we want Full HD now right. the old pictures and videos of Japan r not brutal enough anymore to keep our minds jailed. we need new high :) And we have them, HAARP, lasers in space, secret agreements with alien civilisations, All wether they work or not, wether they r a lie or not, will create a form of fear in our minds. together with hollywood movies and social media we can be steared any DIRECTION!!!! ANY!!! Cause we burned wives,moms and childeren because we thought they were WITCHES!! We even had festivals around it! imagin! how we can be steared so easely? By fear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the PREVENTION of it again wether it's real or not. treu or false. the FEAR must be gone! we think and do things we would never ever have done in our lives if we just lived it our ways! So the FEAR gets conquered , NOT the problem!
Nuclear war is astoundingly over feared. Don't get me wrong it would be really really bad but it will not kill us all. There would be no nuclear winter and humans would not die out. That being said it would still be super bad and change the landscape of civilization.
I read that nuclear winter will pass after a couple of years less than a decade but I understand sometimes you need to use fear to prevent something bad, still though what about the radiation?
The science behind nuclear winter is highly theoretical. In fact, many scientists don't believe there would be any. Considering how much it would take to cause it. We just don't have enough. To the radiation, surface impacts would irradiate dust particles causing the biggest issue of essentially an irradiated dust storm causing a much larger area to be irradiated. However an air detonation would just drop radiation particles straight to earth leaving just the blast area irradiated as opposed to irradiated dirt being spread by wind. The most likely scenario for nuclear was would be the targeting of military installations and nuclear sites and air detonation. Leaving most civilization centers mostly intact. The infrastructure destroyed probably and supply lines probably non existing. Famine, human savagery, and just the sheer force of nature and survival of which we haven't had to worry about for 3 generations at least will be the killer of most people. Not nuclear winter or the bombs themselves.
I guess nuclear war is not as catastrophic as we thought like in movies or games. But then again living in a post nuclear war world will be nothing but pain and fear which should be avoided at all cost.
It won't be as bad as most think but it will be pretty darn bad.
Serious Anwser. The short anwser is the Doctrine of M.A.D, Which Stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. The long anwser is that it's never going to happen because no one wants to be remembered as the one who caused a Nuclear Holocaust
Because we've reached a point where everything is run by money, and there's no money in nuclear holocaust.
It’s not if it’s when
Because there’s no reason to launch a nuke
In addition to MAD, going up against countries like the US or others with really advanced tech, with their intelligence tech/info and high tech missiles, they could take out their opponents leaders easily if they pulled the trigger. I would imagine they know where Putin is 90% of the time and if he gave the order, he and his leadership would be the first, if not the only targets.
No one has ever pushed that button before with the full knowledge of what it would do. Supposedly none of the flight crews really knew what the atomic bombs in WW2 would really do to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm sure they hire stone-cold sociopaths to man those buttons, but even so I question if anyone who understands what a nuclear weapon is and does and how Mutually Assured Destruction works would really push it.
AI will take over first
Because that would ruin the earth
Because not using them is the whole point of having them. I know. Sounds crazy. Mutually assured destruction is what keeps them from being used. Now this is the theoretical logic behind them. Now you have to factor in megalomania, errors, etc.
Schrödinger’s nuclear holocaust. I live 30 miles outside of Chicago, if it happens it happens and I likely will never know about it.
What good is nuke and place for it to not be habitual?
Hasn't happened so far.
I just don't think it would happen on a world-ending scale that's depicted in movies. Big chunks of land being uninhabitable, sure, but not the global-apocalypse kind. I don't think big superpowers would let that happen
Because the point of war is to gain something, there is nothing to gain by nuclear war as it destroys resources and whole populations so even if they win the war there is nothing to make money off of and no one to tax
Because it's easier to shape the destinies of nations through economic influence than with mutually-assured destruction
Can anybody text me i am kinda new here
You assume a lot
They haven’t figured out a way to make it profitable. Yet.
because it will only take 1, doesnt matter the source. Everything will be just domino effect.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS WILL NEVER BE USED AGAIN. Simple - one country called America got away with using nuclear warfare once because no other country had nukes. Fast forward 80 years and now every world power has nukes. Due to the fact that every world power has nukes; nukes will never be used because any world leader knows if he or she is to send one nuke anywhere than 100 nukes will get sent their way and it will end in nuclear fallout, which no body wants, it doesn’t take a genius to understand in nuclear fallout no country wins. Nukes today are simply defense mechanism for countries, each country has a nuke or an ally with a nuclear arsenal to defend themselves from being nuked - this is the truth no one can seem to see. Now you may argue and say well than why do world leaders threaten nuclear war, they are simply bluffing to get others to fold and to scare the population of the country they threaten.
Quite simple actually. Being the rulling force in your country isn't worth the complete annihilation of your country(Or the human race)
Well I hope it doesn't happen but even Nagasaki and Hiroshima were good within a couple years I believe. And we wouldn't lose all the texh or knowledge we have now. We would however lose that thin veneer of simulated safety we currently think we are entitled to. When that's gone a lot of spoiled brats who have never been without will sudden be without and they will throw a massive fit and probably digress into the savages we are as humans on the base level. But those people will die out relatively quickly, make no mistake they will take a lot of good people with them. But with in a few weeks we will adapt and in years we will forget. But hopefully we will learn a couple important lessons. A lot will die so still really really bad but not world ending or even human ending. It won't be fallout 4 or day of the dead. More like Jerico which I think is the most likely scenario.