3 ms·
Full on nuclear war is pretty unlikely as it is really in no-ones interest to invite retaliation in kind. An isolated nuclear attack however is more likely than
by jillesvangurp 4y ago
Full on nuclear war is pretty unlikely as it is really in no-ones interest to invite retaliation in kind. An isolated nuclear attack however is more likely than ever. This whole "will they or will they not?" business with Russia is getting pretty scary. And then there are Iran, North Korea, and a few other places where nuclear weapons are a factor and the economics are trending towards desperate. Not a good combination.
I would say the chance for that might be creeping up a little bit lately. Too many nuclear armed, trigger happy, and increasingly desperate despots around right now. Hard to put a number on it. But I'd say it's high enough to start thinking about counter measures, defensive strategies, and an appropriately violent and fierce response to disincentivize any further escalation. Doesn't have to be a full on nuclear war. But it can't just be a slap on the wrist either.
- mrtksn 4y agoI don’t think that a religious person who accomplished so much would shy away from killing themselves and everyone else, they will even have some religious justification for it. There are also groups out there who advocate for forcing gods hand into starting the judgment day already. The religious zealots are not the only risk, there are quite many nihilists out there who don’t believe or even care about their impact on the world.
- mach1ne 4y agoI wonder if Adolf would have pressed the button in his bunker? He would certainly have teased it. But would even he invite the Apocalypse if he saw his beloved Reich coming to ruin?
- sfusato 4y agoPerhaps this is already forgotten history, but for all the talk about desperate despots the US is still actually the only country to have ever used nuclear bombs in combat, twice. On civilian cities mind you. And the circumstances were anything but desperate for them.
- mrtksn 4y agoThe US also refrained from using that weapon to further conquer the world though. I've read somewhere that the US generals were pumped to use that super weapon to further advance their military interests but the political class opposed it. There are many sins of the US but overall I'm inlined to believe that the US is much more rational superpower that ultimately brings more good than bad because the US interests are in peaceful world that play on their rules. The relative world peace since the WW2 is known as PAX Americana and the moment it falters wannabe warlords start regional wars, causing big tragedies and any conflict happens wherever the US can't project it's force over the regional powers. The weaker the US the more wars happen. You can argue that US rules are not fair and there is quite a lot of American exceptionalism but I'm not convinced that the proposed replacements are any better, thus the wars to change the system are wars fought in vein. IMHO, working with the US is much better any given day. The only risk is, the US itself changing into something bad or retreats voluntarily and leaving vacuum.
- sfusato 4y agoImagine being lectured about the dangers of the concentration camps of other countries by … arrogant germans.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y agoThey are no german invention though, they just scaled them way up, compared to what has been done before, and elsewhere, by other players.
- sfusato 4y agoOf course it's not a german invention. But very few people know that the germans improved upon the British ones (say that publicly and you risk being labelled a conspiracy theorist). And on and on with the chain of history. I was just trying to make a point about hypocrisy, double standards etc.