4 ms·

No - nearly all life on earth would end within hours. Europe, Asia, etc won't just sit around. Think more like 5 billion dead in a few hours... Any real war in

No - nearly all life on earth would end within hours. Europe, Asia, etc won't just sit around. Think more like 5 billion dead in a few hours... Any real war involving the US vs Russia or China draws in all allies, goes nuclear, and results in the complete annihilation of civilization. Anywhere untouched by direct bombing will be dealing with a radiation cloud which will slowly kill them on top of a global ice-age Fun reading about that prospect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)

LatteLazy 6y ago
I really wonder about Europe. It makes no sense for them to get involved in either war. The same applies for India, the Middle east and Africa and South America. How many bombs could two countries throw at easy other before the results were civilisation ending for everyone else? God it’s depressing to think about with the current bunch of “leaders”... Edit, Looks like the USA and Russia hold 90% of all the warheads. So a US China war would be a much smaller event. Still pretty devastating to the planet though. 15 to 30 degree temperature drops and a 10 year period to return to normal climate. Plus fallout and famine and EM pulses.
- nyghtly 6y ago
  Most European nations are allies with the US via NATO. That means they wouldn't have a choice. An attack on the US would be an attack on all NATO allies. An armed response would be necessary, unless they wanted to break the treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Yeah, that is the theory for a scenario where the USA or European mainland was attacked first but... First, if you were (say) France and China launched in the Pacific, would you really doom millions of you’re people by joining in? Really? Second, NATO obligations are limited to defence, so if the USA launched first (or otherwise started the conflict) other members would be free to opt out. If China hit Japan or Taiwan, NATO would not be involved, the USA would be obliged to get involved (japan is an ally). At that point NATO has no obligation at all and the USA and China are racing to get missiles in the air. Third, NATO obligations only apply to attacks in Europe or North America (plus French Algeria and a few other “specials”). That’s why the UK fought the falklands solo (often with NATO allies actively undermining it). So there are a lot of US bases that a first strike against wouldn’t actually trigger NATO commitments for. I think (check my geography)than an invasion of Guam wouldn’t be covered. Not sure about Hawaii, but it doesn’t seem to be covered either. NATO is sort of a mess and since the fall of communism has struggled to find a purpose beyond honouring commitments and organising military activities for preagreed conflicts. But convincing France to sacrifice Paris is a bigger deal than asking for 100 troops for peace keeping in Afghanistan.
    - nyghtly 6y ago
      I'll concede that it's not a certainty.
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        I'm happy to concede it might happen, or more likely I guess some nations would and others wouldn't. I can see the UK following the US blindly. France and other powers much less likely but that's just my opinion. Let's hope it never happens. I am actually really glad the Chinese only have ~300 warheads. That's a lot saner than others...
  - 627467 6y ago
    Not saying it would happen, but as you stated: breaking the treaty is a possibility... Maybe made more likely if the choices are assured destruction in case of total war between China/Russia and USA or possible avoidance of total war due to breakdown in NATO
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  There are plenty of US bases in Europe. So the war would happen there if they like it or not. In addition, as NATO members they would be obliged to stand with the US.
- openasocket 6y ago
  I feel like Europe would definitely be involved in a US-Russian conflict. I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario in which the US and Russia go to war that doesn't start out of some conflict in eastern Europe, or maybe Turkey.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Let me play devil's advocate: * an unpopular, nationalist president like Trump starts it * Russia picks up the phone and makes clear it has no intent to attack anywhere in the EU as long as it doesn't get attacked. It offers assurances To Turkey and Eastern Europe and stands down or withdraws troops etc near those regions. * National leaders (especially say Germany, Italy, Spain) realise their involvement would add nothing and doom all their major cities to annihilation. Also, with the US/Russia gone as powers they will "inherit the earth". If you were Chancellor of Germany would you really say "fuck it, its worth 50m+ civilian casualties to uphold this point of principle"?
    - openasocket 6y ago
      Yeah, in such a situation I'd agree that Europe would likely remain neutral, assuming there was essentially no provocation. But I would consider that extremely unlikely, for a variety of reasons. Here's what I would consider a more likely road to global war: * Russia exerts increased influence on Belarus, turning it into a defacto puppet state * Russia initiates another grey zone conflict, this time in Eastern Poland, in an attempt to improve the lines of communication between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia * While some nations like the UK urge for a diplomatic solution, Poland acts aggressively, striking targets in Belarus to cut off foreign fighters * Russia denounces Polish aggression and builds up forces in Belarus and Kaliningrad, during which Poland shoots down a Russian MiG that strayed into Polish airspace * Increased Russian presence leads to incidents along the border. Lithuania begins mobilization, and the other Baltic states soon after * In retaliation for the MiG shot down, Russia shoots down what it thinks is a Polish F-16, but it actually is Belgian, deployed as a part of the Baltic Air Policing * NATO forces reinforce Poland and Lithuania, begin to limited airstrikes and special forces raids on Belarussian targets. * Belarus declares war but Russia officially doesn't, but keeps its troops forward deployed in the country * NATO forces begin an invasion plan, routing Belarussian forces. Russian troops remain where they are * Russia enters the war, ostensibly defending their troops stationed abroad. Begins a strike of a variety of strategic targets throughout Europe using ballistic and cruise missiles * And so on...
- lunatuna 6y ago
  Would make sense for Russia/US to take out all follow up competition as quickly as possible and leave only a few minimally radiated zones for post nuclear war survival.

LatteLazy 6y ago

I really wonder about Europe. It makes no sense for them to get involved in either war. The same applies for India, the Middle east and Africa and South America. How many bombs could two countries throw at easy other before the results were civilisation ending for everyone else? God it’s depressing to think about with the current bunch of “leaders”... Edit, Looks like the USA and Russia hold 90% of all the warheads. So a US China war would be a much smaller event. Still pretty devastating to the planet though. 15 to 30 degree temperature drops and a 10 year period to return to normal climate. Plus fallout and famine and EM pulses.

nyghtly 6y ago
Most European nations are allies with the US via NATO. That means they wouldn't have a choice. An attack on the US would be an attack on all NATO allies. An armed response would be necessary, unless they wanted to break the treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Yeah, that is the theory for a scenario where the USA or European mainland was attacked first but... First, if you were (say) France and China launched in the Pacific, would you really doom millions of you’re people by joining in? Really? Second, NATO obligations are limited to defence, so if the USA launched first (or otherwise started the conflict) other members would be free to opt out. If China hit Japan or Taiwan, NATO would not be involved, the USA would be obliged to get involved (japan is an ally). At that point NATO has no obligation at all and the USA and China are racing to get missiles in the air. Third, NATO obligations only apply to attacks in Europe or North America (plus French Algeria and a few other “specials”). That’s why the UK fought the falklands solo (often with NATO allies actively undermining it). So there are a lot of US bases that a first strike against wouldn’t actually trigger NATO commitments for. I think (check my geography)than an invasion of Guam wouldn’t be covered. Not sure about Hawaii, but it doesn’t seem to be covered either. NATO is sort of a mess and since the fall of communism has struggled to find a purpose beyond honouring commitments and organising military activities for preagreed conflicts. But convincing France to sacrifice Paris is a bigger deal than asking for 100 troops for peace keeping in Afghanistan.
  - nyghtly 6y ago
    I'll concede that it's not a certainty.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I'm happy to concede it might happen, or more likely I guess some nations would and others wouldn't. I can see the UK following the US blindly. France and other powers much less likely but that's just my opinion. Let's hope it never happens. I am actually really glad the Chinese only have ~300 warheads. That's a lot saner than others...
- 627467 6y ago
  Not saying it would happen, but as you stated: breaking the treaty is a possibility... Maybe made more likely if the choices are assured destruction in case of total war between China/Russia and USA or possible avoidance of total war due to breakdown in NATO
spaetzleesser 6y ago
There are plenty of US bases in Europe. So the war would happen there if they like it or not. In addition, as NATO members they would be obliged to stand with the US.
openasocket 6y ago
I feel like Europe would definitely be involved in a US-Russian conflict. I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario in which the US and Russia go to war that doesn't start out of some conflict in eastern Europe, or maybe Turkey.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Let me play devil's advocate: * an unpopular, nationalist president like Trump starts it * Russia picks up the phone and makes clear it has no intent to attack anywhere in the EU as long as it doesn't get attacked. It offers assurances To Turkey and Eastern Europe and stands down or withdraws troops etc near those regions. * National leaders (especially say Germany, Italy, Spain) realise their involvement would add nothing and doom all their major cities to annihilation. Also, with the US/Russia gone as powers they will "inherit the earth". If you were Chancellor of Germany would you really say "fuck it, its worth 50m+ civilian casualties to uphold this point of principle"?
  - openasocket 6y ago
    Yeah, in such a situation I'd agree that Europe would likely remain neutral, assuming there was essentially no provocation. But I would consider that extremely unlikely, for a variety of reasons. Here's what I would consider a more likely road to global war: * Russia exerts increased influence on Belarus, turning it into a defacto puppet state * Russia initiates another grey zone conflict, this time in Eastern Poland, in an attempt to improve the lines of communication between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia * While some nations like the UK urge for a diplomatic solution, Poland acts aggressively, striking targets in Belarus to cut off foreign fighters * Russia denounces Polish aggression and builds up forces in Belarus and Kaliningrad, during which Poland shoots down a Russian MiG that strayed into Polish airspace * Increased Russian presence leads to incidents along the border. Lithuania begins mobilization, and the other Baltic states soon after * In retaliation for the MiG shot down, Russia shoots down what it thinks is a Polish F-16, but it actually is Belgian, deployed as a part of the Baltic Air Policing * NATO forces reinforce Poland and Lithuania, begin to limited airstrikes and special forces raids on Belarussian targets. * Belarus declares war but Russia officially doesn't, but keeps its troops forward deployed in the country * NATO forces begin an invasion plan, routing Belarussian forces. Russian troops remain where they are * Russia enters the war, ostensibly defending their troops stationed abroad. Begins a strike of a variety of strategic targets throughout Europe using ballistic and cruise missiles * And so on...
lunatuna 6y ago
Would make sense for Russia/US to take out all follow up competition as quickly as possible and leave only a few minimally radiated zones for post nuclear war survival.