To folks reading that think I'm being overly dramatic.
JP Morgan's James Dimon: “Most important, the specter of nuclear weapons — probably still the greatest threat to mankind — hovers as the ultimate decider, which should strike deep fear in all our hearts. ."
Published today....
https://reports.jpmorganchase.com/inves ... etters.htm
The Nuclear issue has not gotten better, its worse, and worse by a lot.
PeakOil is You
THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread Pt. 2 (merged)
Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread Pt. 2 (merged)
by AgentR11 » Mon 08 Apr 2024, 17:57:29
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
- AgentR11
- Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 6589
- Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
- Location: East Texas
Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread Pt. 2 (merged)
by yellowcanoe » Mon 08 Apr 2024, 21:06:28
WW1 saw the introduction of chemical warfare - chlorine gas and mustard gas. By WW2, Germany and a few other countries had developed much more lethal nerve gas agents. Yet even the Nazis, one of the most depraved bunches in modern history chose not to use chemical weapons. The Western Allies decided they would use chemical weapons only if the Nazis used them first. There is some evidence that Hitler himself was against use of chemical weapons as he had personally experienced the effects of mustard gas in WW1.
It is conceivable that nuclear weapons will be treated the same way that chemical weapons were in WW2 -- only used if the other side uses them first. It is therefore conceivable for example that a direct war could be fought between NATO and Russia without triggering a nuclear war. Of course there is no guarantee it would work out that way and the major powers have avoided direct confrontation since WW2 opting instead to support a number of proxy wars fought by allies equipped only with conventional weapons.
It is conceivable that nuclear weapons will be treated the same way that chemical weapons were in WW2 -- only used if the other side uses them first. It is therefore conceivable for example that a direct war could be fought between NATO and Russia without triggering a nuclear war. Of course there is no guarantee it would work out that way and the major powers have avoided direct confrontation since WW2 opting instead to support a number of proxy wars fought by allies equipped only with conventional weapons.
"new housing construction" is spelled h-a-b-i-t-a-t d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.
- yellowcanoe
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread Pt. 2 (merged)
by Newfie » Tue 09 Apr 2024, 18:17:42
I agree it is a problem and one likely to get worse.
On the one hand you have Russia who likes to talk about nukes, a lot, and in pretty graphic terms. That creates a dilemma. If you cower at those threat the. You give Russia license to do whatever it likes. One other option is to call their bluff. And that is where the MAD rational comes to play. If you consider a religious nutter rational. It is a huge risk but I see little alternative. Perhaps playing Russia and running the. Into the gutter. But that is no guarantee of success, they could loose control of the nukes to other even more rabid nutters.
Then there is Pakistan. A nuclear country under siege by Islamic nutters. Those devices could get loose into the radical segments, or Pakistan could give/sell them. The democratization of nuclear military power.
Not a lot I like in any of that.
On the one hand you have Russia who likes to talk about nukes, a lot, and in pretty graphic terms. That creates a dilemma. If you cower at those threat the. You give Russia license to do whatever it likes. One other option is to call their bluff. And that is where the MAD rational comes to play. If you consider a religious nutter rational. It is a huge risk but I see little alternative. Perhaps playing Russia and running the. Into the gutter. But that is no guarantee of success, they could loose control of the nukes to other even more rabid nutters.
Then there is Pakistan. A nuclear country under siege by Islamic nutters. Those devices could get loose into the radical segments, or Pakistan could give/sell them. The democratization of nuclear military power.
Not a lot I like in any of that.
-
Newfie - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 18651
- Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread Pt. 2 (merged)
by careinke » Wed 10 Apr 2024, 01:05:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I') agree it is a problem and one likely to get worse.
On the one hand you have Russia who likes to talk about nukes, a lot, and in pretty graphic terms. That creates a dilemma. If you cower at those threat the. You give Russia license to do whatever it likes. One other option is to call their bluff. And that is where the MAD rational comes to play. If you consider a religious nutter rational. It is a huge risk but I see little alternative. Perhaps playing Russia and running the. Into the gutter. But that is no guarantee of success, they could loose control of the nukes to other even more rabid nutters.
Then there is Pakistan. A nuclear country under siege by Islamic nutters. Those devices could get loose into the radical segments, or Pakistan could give/sell them. The democratization of nuclear military power.
Not a lot I like in any of that.
On the one hand you have Russia who likes to talk about nukes, a lot, and in pretty graphic terms. That creates a dilemma. If you cower at those threat the. You give Russia license to do whatever it likes. One other option is to call their bluff. And that is where the MAD rational comes to play. If you consider a religious nutter rational. It is a huge risk but I see little alternative. Perhaps playing Russia and running the. Into the gutter. But that is no guarantee of success, they could loose control of the nukes to other even more rabid nutters.
Then there is Pakistan. A nuclear country under siege by Islamic nutters. Those devices could get loose into the radical segments, or Pakistan could give/sell them. The democratization of nuclear military power.
Not a lot I like in any of that.
Let's be real. So far, the U.S. has been the only "nutter" to use nukes. Hopefully it will continue that way, if not we will all be dead in 72 minutes, so I'm not worrying about it.
Peace
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
-
careinke - Volunteer
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread Pt. 2 (merged)
by yellowcanoe » Wed 10 Apr 2024, 10:10:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '
')Let's be real. So far, the U.S. has been the only "nutter" to use nukes. Hopefully it will continue that way, if not we will all be dead in 72 minutes, so I'm not worrying about it.
Peace
')Let's be real. So far, the U.S. has been the only "nutter" to use nukes. Hopefully it will continue that way, if not we will all be dead in 72 minutes, so I'm not worrying about it.
Peace
The odd thing is that while there was a lot of discussion at a high level before the decision was made to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, there wasn't a similar discussion before the army airforce started fire bombing cities in Japan. The fire bombing attacks killed far more people than the two atomic bombs did!
"new housing construction" is spelled h-a-b-i-t-a-t d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.
- yellowcanoe
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread Pt. 2 (merged)
by careinke » Wed 10 Apr 2024, 13:23:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yellowcanoe', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '
')Let's be real. So far, the U.S. has been the only "nutter" to use nukes. Hopefully it will continue that way, if not we will all be dead in 72 minutes, so I'm not worrying about it.
Peace
')Let's be real. So far, the U.S. has been the only "nutter" to use nukes. Hopefully it will continue that way, if not we will all be dead in 72 minutes, so I'm not worrying about it.
Peace
The odd thing is that while there was a lot of discussion at a high level before the decision was made to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, there wasn't a similar discussion before the army airforce started fire bombing cities in Japan. The fire bombing attacks killed far more people than the two atomic bombs did!
Unfortunately, most atomic bombs today are just a wee bit larger than in WWII. Add in the Launch On Warning Protocol, combined with our brain dead President, things could go sour very quickly.
Peace
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
-
careinke - Volunteer
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Pacific Northwest
