4 ms·
That video is pretty stupid. WW3 will not start over a downed plane. WW3 will not even start in case of one isolated nuclear explosion (Russia bombing one US c
by 21 9y ago
That video is pretty stupid. WW3 will not start over a downed plane.
WW3 will not even start in case of one isolated nuclear explosion (Russia bombing one US city), there are limited response scenarios prepared for that.
On the production level, conventional war between Nato and Russia happens, and the BBC presenter is oh so calm and composed, but I supposed you can't ask much from a low-budget documentary (if I can call it that).
- coldcode 9y agoWar plans rarely if ever work exactly as planned. You can simulate nuclear responses but I doubt it has the same impact as millions of dead people.
- macintux 9y agoI like your optimism, but I'm not sure it's warranted. A "limited response" doesn't mean escalations won't continue, and we no longer have a guarantee that at any given point in time either Russia or the US will have a rational leader.
- 21 9y agoI was just pointing out that a downed plane doesn't automatically trigger WW3. See for example the lawful (but provocative) downing of a russian plane by Turkey. The retaliation from Russia was basically just words and some economic sanctions. I'm not sure if the leader of US or Russia can order a first strike without inbound missiles from the other side. Would the military execute a first strike knowing what the response of the other side would be?
- yclept 9y agoWW1 began over less
- kobeya 9y agoColonial empires and pretext?
- cmurf 9y agoWWI was started over the assassination of Duke Ferdinand and his wife. You think the species has evolved somehow since then?
- c3833174 9y agoICBM seem like a good deterrent compared to infantry and animal-carried weapons
- kbart 9y ago"World War surely would not start over a single assassination"[0]. Given a sufficient tension (which is all time high now since the collapse of USSR between NATO and Russia) any single event might provide a tipping point to a chain reaction and downward spiral to the all-out war. Sure, neither side wants it, but looking back at history I don't think that's enough to prevent bad things from happening. 0. See WWI.
- andrepd 9y agoThe context was extremely different. Nowadays there are mechanisms, organisations, and plans that prevent minor incidents from escalating. You cannot compare the world of today with the world of 1914. Also the war did not "start over an assassination". It's much more complex than that, and the assassination was just the pretext.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoAs would be starting a war over a downed plane or strike on a US city.
- 21 9y agoSome people really wanted to go to war in 1914. Are you saying that we are now in such a situation, where USA or Russia are itching for a conflict?