BF2S Forums Nuclear War

Smithereener wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

dayarath wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

You've seen how Putin has managed to assert complete control over the Kremlin. What's so say that can't happen with someone who is completely nuts?!

atleast Putin isn't totally crazy


A few, of a real big lot of them. Even so, hitler grabbed the right opportunity. A powerful nation bitter about their defeat, in ruins - he riled them all up. All you need is a fairly powerful nation to lose a war and come in the same situation and a nutter like Hitler could easily take control.

Other than that, there are numerous not so powerful politicaly unstable nuclear powers that could make dramatic events happen.

pfft.

Name one.

Well, Pakistan and India aren't exactly best of friends. And Pakistan has seen a lot of unrest the past few years too I believe.

Maybe...

SEREVENT wrote:

Name one.

North Korea, Israel vs Palestine, Pakistan, India, soon to be Iran.

those just came to mind.

Last edited by dayarath (2008-08-26 13:42:28)

dayarath wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

Name one.

North Korea, Israel vs Palestine, Pakistan, India, soon to be Iran.

those just came to mind.

...i said name one.

*storms out*

SgtHeihn wrote:

dayarath wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

Name one.

North Korea, Israel vs Palestine, Pakistan, India, soon to be Iran.

those just came to mind.

Israel would never launch nukes at Gaza or the West Bank, that would destroy them.

fair enough, same about all the other countries there though.

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

dayarath wrote:

North Korea, Israel vs Palestine, Pakistan, India, soon to be Iran.

those just came to mind.

Israel would never launch nukes at Gaza or the West Bank, that would destroy them.

They still may end up targeting another Islamic country.

Only as MAD, if they launched at their neighbors the fallout would kill them. They could, theoretically use them on Iran, but that would spark a nuke war, their government is not that unstable.

SealXo wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

SealXo wrote:

Nuclear Weapons are to Iran as Crack Cocaine is to Amy Winehouse.

How do you even know that, they don't even have Nuclear Weapons let alone use them like Amy Winehouse uses that pipe

Amy Winehouse without crack is to Iran without Uranium

How about nuclear weapons are to Iran what Iran/Winehouse comparisons are to SealXO?

SealXo wrote:

In the wrong hands anything could happen.


Nuclear Weapons are to Iran as Crack Cocaine is to Amy Winehouse.

Who says Us won't shoot a missile? Because they are the good, the world police? the savers from the evil communism? Give me a break.
We all know that any country including Us are all capable of starting a WW3.

Intentional use is only half the story with nuclear war.

We know from the US that there have been over a hundred mistakes or accidents that have triggered a potential nuclear retalliation. With the time window for reacting to an attack being something like 15 minutes this doesn't leave much time for people to figure out if the trigger was real of a mistake. The US system is the safest one. The Russian system is assumed to be old and poorly maintained therefore more likely to fuck up. The even worse case is between Pakistan and India. Due to their proximity they get something like 2 minutes between the alarm being raised and having to make the final call on retalliation or not.

Eventually computers or human error are going to fuck up and launch nukes. Unless the potential for mankind to destroy itself is removed, the question is when will this happen, not if.

PureFodder wrote:

Eventually computers or human error are going to fuck up and launch nukes. Unless the potential for mankind to destroy itself is removed, the question is when will this happen, not if.

Can't speak for Russia or any other nuclear-capable country, but the US system effectively prevents computers OR human error from doing this. Nukes can't be armed or launched without positive intent from the humans involved.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Eventually computers or human error are going to fuck up and launch nukes. Unless the potential for mankind to destroy itself is removed, the question is when will this happen, not if.

Can't speak for Russia or any other nuclear-capable country, but the US system effectively prevents computers OR human error from doing this. Nukes can't be armed or launched without positive intent from the humans involved.

But eventually computer error will trigger the reaction and combine with human error misreading the intel/situation. It may even be that given the computer error, the correct response (assuming there was no error) would be to launch.

The problem being that you only need to fuck up once to end humanity or destroy millions of people.

It's very unlikely to happen tomorrow or the next day but an unlikely events over large periods of time eventually occur.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Can't speak for Russia or any other nuclear-capable country, but the US system effectively prevents computers OR human error from doing this. Nukes can't be armed or launched without positive intent from the humans involved.

But eventually computer error will trigger the reaction and combine with human error misreading the intel/situation. It may even be that given the computer error, the correct response (assuming there was no error) would be to launch.

The problem being that you only need to fuck up once to end humanity or destroy millions of people.

It's very unlikely to happen tomorrow or the next day but an unlikely events over large periods of time eventually occur.

I say that, given the ability of the conventional arsenal, the ONLY situation that would result in a nuclear exchange (much less an all-out war) would be an actual nuke launch against the US. Even a response to a nudet in the US from a terrorist would likely not involve nukes from our side.

There are far too many checks and balances in the system for your scenario to be remotely plausible. Multiple computer systems, multiple sensors, multiple decision steps, multiple authentication protocols...

But eventually that will not be enough. Roll a million dice enough times and they'll eventually all roll 6. It's the problem with very unlikely events, over large timespans they become likely.

It doesn't need an actual launch against the US, it only needs a perceived launch.

There's further problems in terms of basing the defence on computers. As we all know there really is no way to predict what advances in computing will be like in years to come. What may be ultra secure today may be horribly compromised tomorrow. There is no 100% absolute security, there is always risk. If there is a risk, eventually that risk won't pay off. The only 100% security you can have is if no country has the ability to destroy humanity.

Ok ive just read this entire thread and apart from wondering why we are all rolling dice seeing if a 6 comes up, my personal opinion is that the day will come when we will destroy our planet but i dont believe its going to be by nuclear weapons. I believe it will be by a advanced weapon which is yet to be invented. People have tried nukes and seen the consequences now they'll invent something new and try that out.