[medicvet]

I was a little uncertain on which arena here would be best to present this question, but then felt it prolly fit best here.

I KNOW I can't be the only one to grow up under the shadow of the bomb, to have watched 'the day after', 'threads', etc, and been influenced by it all. And can't help but wonder if the shadow of PeakOil might end up leading to a nuclear confrontation between nations. Honestly, while some may think that a 'limited' nuclear war is either a possibility or even doable, I have my doubts.

Are there any here who think that there is a good chance that even before we reach the level of hardship that PO will induce internationally, that we humans will end up making things far worse?

And are there any here who think that no matter how bad things get that no country on earth would go that route? (ruling out of course the 'rogue' bomb(s) not from nations..

And who here actually thinks that a 'limited' nuclear war is not only a possibility but a likelihood?

Am VERY interested in the opinions here on this.

[aldente]

I was in Pasadenas Lucky Baldwins pub the other day and in a few words explained the concept and consequences of Peak Oil to two other fellow beer drinkers that I assume were from Caltech. The first response from one of them was that this will result in "nuclear war".
What took him 10 seconds of reasoning seems to take others years. I myself came a couple of times to the conclusion meanwhile that the threat of nuclear weapons never dissapeared as was so commonly conluded after the Cold War was over. Once a system is under extreme stress everything is possible and knowing the extremely low psychological level our governing entities the use of nuclear weapons is extremely likely.
Check on David Hawkins ideas on calibrating consciousness. According to his arbitrary scale from 1 to 1000 Hitler for instance came to power in around 400 and than fell way under 200 (the critical mark). Where do we think leading world politicians do calibrate?? Power vs. Force is a great book.

[rogerhb]

I was raised in the UK during the 70s and 80s within 20 miles of three airforce bases, two of them American. We lived with a certainty that if there was a global exchange we would be wiped out in the first half hour of that war, once you've lived with that hanging over you the rest is easy!

There is a theory that the global hemispheres have independant weather systems so a minor [!] exchange in the Northern hemisphere may not affect the Southern as much, may be that's just a hope.

Other than that NZ is strongly anti-Nuclear and not part of the coalition of the willing. So at least we won't be responsible for any of the carnage.

[bobcousins]

The idea that we will inevitably fall into nuclear war is pretty naive. It appears to be based on a simplistic application of game theory. "Hey, my neighbour has more resources than I do so I will nuke him". The theory seems popular with those who lean towards the American ideal of the Wild West - disputes are settled by a simple shoot out. Fair and honourable, if violent. In real life, it was never like that.

I think even a basic analysis shows that something more subtle and sophisticated governs people's behaviour at both a personal and international level. For example, risk aversion. When the stakes get too high, people don't play even when logically they should. The logic of game theory out of RAND said that the US should preemptively nuke USSR while the US had nuclear advantage. Fortunately, successive US presidents dd not follow this advice.

During the Korean war, MacArthur demanded a nuclear attack on China. In military terms, this was perfectly sensible. But the President disagreed.

There really is nothing to suggest that the scenarios envisaged post-peak will be fundamentally different, such that it becomes desirable to start lobbing nukes at each other. If they haven't been used in the past when it was clearly logical to do so, then it is unlikely to happen in the future. Sure people may be desparate and hungry, but how does mutual annihilation solve that?

There will be rogue states, like Saddam Hussein's, who may be tempted into illogical acts of war. While nuclear weapons are around, this remains a risk and the likelihood over time is that this may happen. But mad dictators can happen at any time whether before or after peak.

It has been shown that the best strategy is "tit for tat". Cooperation is rewarded. You only go nuclear if your opponent does. This therefore runs counter to the logic of "first strike".

[medicvet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')uring the Korean war, MacArthur demanded a nuclear attack on China. In military terms, this was perfectly sensible. But the President disagreed.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('medicvet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')uring the Korean war, MacArthur demanded a nuclear attack on China. In military terms, this was perfectly sensible. But the President disagreed.

[medicvet]

I know that given today's society that the influence of a strong personality is mitigated by many factors, but still would never rule it out.

Just because it isn't happening today doesn't mean it could..

charisma of the leader would of course play a strong part...

As would the uncertainty and volatility of the times.

[GreyZone]

Professor Deffeyes recently stated, "Amos Nure at Stanford is all but predicting a war between the United States and China over access to world oil supplies. Now, he says, I don’t want to see a war between the U.S. and China, and I hope that by predicting it, we can avoid it."

People can see where this is going. We've already had Oil War I (Iraq) and you can expect more oil wars the deeper into this we go unless oil using nations start choosing different paths.

[Ayoob]

If there is a nuclear war and I survive it somehow, I'm going to be really pissed at whoever decided to ruin the entire planet permanently. Dessert will be served.

[catbox]

I found this article pretty good reading....although, I have read many like it over the past few months...this is just the latest:

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=7463

Sounds like, and has for some time, that Bushco has been getting set to use nukes anyway. That sucks, because I think they would do it.....nothing for this admin to lose now. Remember, peak oil or not, these nuts think they can get ol' Jesus to come back if they set things right. ICK!

Catbox

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')People can see where this is going. We've already had Oil War I (Iraq) and you can expect more oil wars the deeper into this we go unless oil using nations start choosing different paths.

[rkerver]

Pentagon Foresees Preemptive Nuclear Strikes by Jim Lobe, September 25, 2005:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')mid increasing tension between the United States and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program, and growing concern about overstretched U.S. ground forces, the George W. Bush administration is moving steadily toward adopting the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states as an integral part of its global military strategy.

According to a March document by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was recently posted to the Pentagon's Web site, Washington will not necessarily wait for potential adversaries to use what it calls "weapons of mass destruction" before resorting to a nuclear strike against them.

The document, entitled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" has yet to be approved by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, according to an account published in Sunday's Washington Post. However, it is largely consistent with the administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was widely assailed by arms control advocates for lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.

[Quicksilver]

Yep that's a likely scenario. The U.S will drop nuclear weapons on Iran and drive the price of oil to $400 a barrel and wipe out the global economy. Or the U.S will nuke China and destroy their own economy in the process.

The great thing about nuclear weapons is that you'll never use them against a country that has them also.

M.A.D - Mutual assured destruction.

[rkerver]

As I understand it, their movement into Iran has already been plotted. The Pentagon has charted this with Israeli military planners. Iran is a far greater danger than Iraq, with hardened ballistic missile silos that can target Israel, not to mention dominance over the Strait of Hormuz. Hence, the need for the tactical nuclear weapons, to take out that capability for a retaliatory strike against Israel. It'll also be "shock and awe" on steroids, teaching not just Iran, but Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, and the rest of the world, how serious they are about global petrodollar hegemony. By "they" I mean the neoconservative political-military-industrial-banking complex where the nexus of power lies. The urgency of the US conquest of Iraq included Iran and the rest of the region, from the beginning. For the record, the common American is most often horrified when confronted with the facts of all this.

[SeasonOfPain]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rkerver', 'F')or the record, the common American is most often horrified when confronted with the facts of all this.

[medicvet]

yah, Miracle Mile was definitely a panic attack movie. Although the one that affected me the most was 'threads' as far as believing it came closest to what the aftermath of a nuclear war would be like.

But to think that it wouldn't happen because we are 'too smart' or it is 'not feasible' I think is to bury one's head in the stand.

I would go so far as to say that I actually find it LIKELY that there will be a nuclear confrontation in our near future.

[gg3]

Predicting the behavior of small numbers of humans is difficult compared to predicting the behavior of large numbers. That being said...


During the Cold War, the primary adversaries (USA/USSR) were governed by rational people, by which I mean, people with a reasoned fear of their own death and the death of their citizens. They sought to avoid direct superpower conflict and they put mechanisms in place -negative feedback loops- to limit the potential for it arising and escalating. It worked, we're alive to tell the story.

At present, the primary adversaries (USA/terrorists) are governed by irrational people: people who embrace death as a route to martyrdom, in both the Islamic and Christian sense. People who believe that megadeath is OK because it leads to paradise or to the Kingdom of God. This situation has the makings of a positive feedback loop that could lead to the use of nuclear and biological weapons.

Also consider that, minus the USA, China and Russia become co-hegemons who can divide up the globe between themselves and have a lot more resources to go around. This is a tempting incentive in the event the leadership of either country heads toward megalomania.

I discussed this scenario with a friend in the military who has experience dealing with intel matters related to China and North Korea, and he said he felt it was unlikely. For one thing, China would become entangled in Russia's endemic economic problems, which China is not in China's interest.

As well, any country that attempted to use nuclear weapons against the USA would face a crushing second strike; this is a powerful disincentive. And even if you assume an attacker uses EMP weapons to knock out our command & control infrastructure, we still do have our Trident submarines, with their awesome nuclear deterrent capabilities, cruising safely below the oceans and ready to launch the second strike should the need arise.

Our safest course of action right now would be to get rid of the Bush Administration as quickly as possible by whatever route is available. The present round of scandals may help somewhat in this regard, and might even lead to impeachment (for example lying America into war in Iraq). The 2006 election may also help if it can create a balance of power vis-a-vis the legislative branch. And then if we make it to 2008, there's the definitive turning point, but it's still three years away.

The sooner we have rational government in place, the better, not only for avoiding the risk of nuclear war, but for everything else we discuss here.

[SeasonOfPain]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('medicvet', 'y')ah, Miracle Mile was definitely a panic attack movie. Although the one that affected me the most was 'threads' as far as believing it came closest to what the aftermath of a nuclear war would be like.

[gnm]

"Threads" doesn't appear to be available in the US ....

-G

[actionreplay]

"Threads" was released on DVD in 2000 by the BBC but was never re-issued. I got my copy from an amazon.co.uk reseller who sells bootleg copies. It is WELL WORTH the shipping to the US. It was originally made in 1983 specially for TV by the BBC and broadcast in big fanfare. I still CANNOT BELIEVE they showed stuff this graphic on prime-time tv back then!

I watched this some months ago and it's probably one of the BEST pieces of sci-fi / drama I have ever seen. The BBC really excelled themselves. It also really shocked me, despite the fact that I knew a lot of what was in it from reading reviews and fansites beforehand. It's designed to do that, that it still has the power to shock is a testament to the power and punch of the script and acting.

What I liked most about it was that it concentrated quite a lot on two things that many post-apocalyptic dramas or sci-fi epics don't: firstly, how the button ended up getting pushed in the first place, and secondly, how all the best-laid contingency plans were a waste of space.

In the movie, a large part of the film is devoted to showing the buildup to nuclear war in the background (news broadcasts, headlines etc) while we see in the foreground the "story" of the young couple getting engaged, buying a flat etc.

It shows an interesting angle on MAD: if you are facing an oponent, and you each draw a weapon, the weapon only has power as a threat display IF one of you believes there is a chance of the other actually firing theirs. If you are both totally convinced the other is never going to fire, you can each end up feeling too confident and upping the ante more and more aggressively until you are so much in each other's faces that one of you feels they HAVE to fire, even if it means death for them too.

So both sides (USA and USSR) behave as if no-one has nukes, and then... well, watch the movie. The public get more and more agitated, but by the time they realise it might actually happen, it's too late... the film was made in 1983 for TV and is in some ways dated, but if you can ignore the period setting it's a really, really good piece of cinema.

There is a lot available on-line, also look up the old 80s "Protect and Survive" material on this site, also contains a link to a comprehensive review of "Threads": http://www.cybertrn.demon.co.uk/atomic/

I have a morbid fascination with this movie at the moment. I keep on recommending it to every sci-fi fan I know....