Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
DesperateDan
Dec 10, 2005

Where's my cow?

Is that my cow?

No it isn't, but it still tramples my bloody lavender.
It almost happened multiple times during the cold war, but the vast majority of those times it would have been accidental, or through severe misinterpretation by one side at a time of tension (like the 1983 able archer crisis that the west didn't realise was a crisis until after the fact) rather than an intentional course by both sides. A conventional war between the NATO/Warsaw pact would have probably ended up nuclear quite quickly, but because of that it became less likely- especially as weapons technology progressed. If either side looked like winning, established doctrine for the other side was to start lobbing tactical/theatre level nukes.

MAD works, it works really well until it doesn't work, and then it fucks everything spectacularly simply because of how it works- it works to ensure a nation can and will retaliate in full, and sets in place the infrastructure and contingencies to allow this to happen in the direst of circumstances. For example, one side launches a limited strike, but as the target nation won't know where or how bad they will be hit until after the fact, they launch everything they have in retaliation, because for all they know, in 10-15 minutes or less their missiles and/or government will be radioactive vapour one way or the other. The aggressor now is faced with the dilemma of use 'em or lose 'em for their remaining stocks, and they don't know if their opponent is holding back a second/third strike in reserve, so they go balls to the wall too.

That this exists makes it less likely that anyone would intentionally start a nuclear war, but seen as we are now into cold war II the chances for accidents and misinterpretations is only going to grow again. In case of terrorist nuclear weapons, blame would be placed on a nation state quickly, and could well result in a nuclear strike. Something like that would dwarf the kind of political impact 9/11 had, and certainly retaliation would be popular among the population of the struck nation.


In case of all out nuclear war, civilisation wouldn't probably make it, certainly not as we know it. Humans as a species would probably pull through after awhile though.

DesperateDan fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 14, 2015

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread