just about everything else has happened though op. from nukes being lost..to being dropped by accident, computers thinking they have been launched...people thinking that they have been launched. But in the end no one has done it yet because they know the other guy has it 2...and for 70 odd years that has been enough.
>>519255 Both great powers have been satiated with what they have, the "Nuke" did nothing for peace just as the maxim gun did nothing during the congress of europe. War is coming. >>519259 Nukes cannot kill everything.
>>519374 it will probably be some group/orginization like u said trying to make a point. or a incident happening in a country and the nukes launching because they dont care at that point or dont care. A likely example would be india and pakistan. But its still not likely, it will probably be a accident that sparks it or someone stealing or making a crude small one then does something.
So now instead of being the ruling elite of a wealthy powerful nation with many millions of subjects and vast resources and advanced technology
You are now the ruling elite of whoever still will take you seriously in a depopulated blasted ruin whose wealth and culture has been seriously damaged, wracked by famine, plague, banditry and lawlessness
Jeez I wonder why the people in charge don't really want to start a nuclear war.
>>519392 >ultimately the united states [was] led [by] rational, self-interested men who realized that it is better to go home to their families at the end of the day than to push the button
This is a stretch.
Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan were all christians. A core tenet of Christianity is the passing nature of this world.
Carter and Reagan were radical christians who believed in the immanence and imminence of the rapture. Reagan, while in office, went through periods of mental instability which put his decision making into the hands of radical christians with even greater beliefs in imminence.
Nixon went insane in office (poor bugger). His chief advisor believed that murdering thousands of trade unionists over freedom of trade was legitimate. His chief advisor advocated mass aerial bombardment of civil targets for the purposes of treaty negotiation, and Nixon listened to this advice.
LBJ was relatively rational, and sought rational men to advise him. Perhaps we can criticise this rationality as being disinterested in the return to the family life, because Mcnamara would have started a nuclear war if the input output tables said so.
JFK was a fucking speed freak who almost started a nuclear war because, damnit, we need obsolete missiles in Turkey.
Ike was rational and well known for kicking military industry complex figures in the nuts, publicly, over nuclear strategy.
Mutually assured destruction, even if a pre-emptive strike was made on one side's arsenal, neither side had total knowledge of how many weapons the other possesd, and where they are located, leading to all the nuclear powers coming to the conclusion that firing their nuclear weapons was paramount to firing at their own population too
The only question though is, would someone be willing to press the button to retaliate, willing to know they'll be responsible for the deaths of countless civilian lives, even if they live in an opposing state. If you look at most situations where nuclear action was proposed or close to occurring due to tensions or mechanical faults giving false data, no one has chosen to retaliate yet.
The only way to guarantee mutually assured destruction is through an AI based system
The MAD concept really likes to assume that the use of even just one bomb would result in a nuclear frenzy, which doesn't make sense. While it could seem potentially advantageous to exchange one or two attacks with roughly equal retaliation, there is no advantage to mindlessly firing as many nukes as possible.
>>519535 that's just it tho, why would anyone stop at one or two? country A fires a nuke at country B, country A returns the favour. now why would it stop there? country B would of course retaliate and it'd just go back and fourth till one of them either ran out of nukes or ceased to exist
>>519535 >The MAD concept really likes to assume that the use of even just one bomb would result in a nuclear frenzy, which doesn't make sense. While it could seem potentially advantageous to exchange one or two attacks with roughly equal retaliation, there is no advantage to mindlessly firing as many nukes as possible.
Soviet doctrine was one use by OPFOR = all go.
Do you want to know something even more amusing? Soviet Doctrine considered smoke and WP as a trigger for chemical warfare authorisation.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb explained it pretty well, actually. You're never positive what a country has in store in terms of nuclear defense, odds are using nuclear weapons would just start a nuclear war of attrition.
>>519255 The closest that any power has come to either be during the Korea War with the US nuking China or the Sino-Soviet border conflict with both parties nuking each other. In both cases China was by far the weaker party, and with some planning could of been first strike'ed out of the war. How in both cases the stronger party knew that doing some would have major negative effects on NATO/Warsaw pact thus was not viewed as being worth it.
>>519255 >Why none of the nuclear powers pushed zhe button yet? Nothing has made the risk/reward analysis slide in its favor.
>>519298 >The soviet union had a conscientious "fire second" strategy. The Soviets had plans to fire preemptively when they believed that an attack by NATO was imminent or to limit NATO escalation options as a precursor to their deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.
>>519280 Toward the late Cold War, both sides planned to fight what the US planners called "The Long War" which was a nuclear exchange that lasted days or weeks rather than 2 hours.
Explain to me how anything but a limited nuclear exchange would not kill every living thing on this earth..?
All the dust that get's thrown into the air would cover the earth in perpetual darkness for several years. Nothing would grow. All water would be contanimated. All animals would die, including the fish in the ocean. What would we humans eat? We can't grow crops, because there's no sun. We can't eat animals, because they all died because the food chain got fucking wrecked. We can't drink water because it's all radioactive.
>>522824 Sorry. I meant I heard it from a guy who used to work as one of those. Holy fucking shit. Oppenheimer Read this essay on nukes and tell me what you think of it. >http://www.giantbomb.com/fallout-3/3030-20504/forums/nuclear-warfare-101-wall-of-text-alert-2999/
>>522853 >All the dust that get's thrown into the air would cover the earth in perpetual darkness for several years. Nothing would grow. All water would be contanimated. All animals would die, including the fish in the ocean. What would we humans eat? We can't grow crops, because there's no sun. We can't eat animals, because they all died because the food chain got fucking wrecked. We can't drink water because it's all radioactive. None of these things are accurate. Fallout is a fun game, but it is not a good reference for nuclear weapon effects.
>>522863 I have read it. He is largely correct in his technical aspects, but I disagree with him on his opinions for the most part.
>All the dust that get's thrown into the air would cover the earth in perpetual darkness for several years. Nothing would grow. All water would be contanimated. All animals would die, including the fish in the ocean. What would we humans eat? We can't grow crops, because there's no sun. We can't eat animals, because they all died because the food chain got fucking wrecked. We can't drink water because it's all radioactive.
>>522927 It would be traumatic, for sure. The face of the nation would never be the same, but I believe it would survive and recover. The borders may change, and the US would not be anywhere close to the power that it was prior, but in a few years, a decade or so, a pre attack citizen dropped into the post attack united states might not find himself too out of place. But I am considered an optimist by many, and after all, its all opinion.
Not him, but as long as the human capital remains, even in a shrunken form, you're not likely to see a descent into barbarism, involving living in their own shit, starving, and keeping women around as breeding sows.
Cultural values aren't that hard to erase, and people tend to cling to them, not abandon them, in times of adversity. The "B" country is relatively self-sufficient (at least in America), not only in regards to things like agricultural production, but also in light manufacturing.
Would the standard of living be as high? Definitely not. But the notion that as soon as the electricity falls off, EVERYTHING TURNS TO SHIT, is just ridiculous.
That, and while not relating to nuclear war by itself, he enormously underestimates the ability of states to erase each other with conventional weapons. Occupation is immensely destructive if the occupier wants it to be, and can be far deadlier than a nuclear exchange.
>>522942 Sagan makes several assumptions that are incorrect. 1) The idea that 1 target gets 1 warhead. This is incorrect. Most targets will get between 2 to 3 warheads. 2) The idea that most targets will be urban area targets. The vast majority of targets will be nuclear weapons themselves and supporting infrastructure. 3) Failure to account for increased fire safety in modern building materials and codes. 4) Using Glasstones thermal effects data from Hiroshima. The USSBS found that the Hiroshima firestorm was due to the light construction of the buildings as well as the ubiquitous stoves that most Japanese buildings contained. Post war testing found that the cal/cm2 needed to cause sustained ignition in most building materials was higher than Glasstone reported. The best way to illustrate this is the pic in this post. The thermal flash causes charring on the face of the house. The charing in turn releases smoke, that obscures the material and protects it from the continuing thermal effects. Post war testing showed that this effect on most building materials decreased the cal/cm2 that was received as time went on, making the thermal effects less effective. You get charing, but not sustained ignition.
Nuclear winter depends on soot from massive firestorms. Massive firestorms depend on sustained ignition.
Since you don't have sustained ignition, you do not have firestorms. No firestorms, no nuclear winter.
and lastly: 4) Sagan's particle injection model was shown to be fatally flawed when it predicted a cooling effect from the Gulf War fires. Such cooling did not materialize.
Every study that proposes nuclear winter makes the same errors outlined above. If you start with flawed assumptions, how can your conclusions be reliable?
I'm curious, and someone who isn't in any way connected with the nuclear establishment: why is your opinion considered overly optimistic?
You have some pretty solid historical evidence of societies sustaining enormous losses (Paraguayan war, post 3 kingdoms China) and still maintaining their cultural identity, keeping order, and even sometimes maintaining their actual governmental regime.
If the technical assumptions mentioned in the Slade article are more or less correct, you'd probably have a lesser level of total devastation than say, the Jin dynasty China. Why then, is the usual assumption total societal collapse?
I just read this Slade article, it seems exterminating the civilian population is the best thing to do, to stop them rebuilding afterwards. So all the precision targeting of assets is just a starter course for the the main event of killing people.
>>522939 I think you are pretty niave about mankind's ability to maintain civility during and after disasters. Consider that after Katrina, New Orleans was in anarchy until armed forces could maintain somw sense of order. There was widespread crime and looting across the city. Imagine a scenario where the there would not be an organized armed force of NG troops, cops and mercs to instill order because they are either dead or worried about their own families. Nuclear attacks place military bases pretty high on the priority list, there will not be enough troops to maintain order.
At a guess, it depends largely on how dependent they are on international trade.
Even if the various great powers survive as cultural phenomenons, and can eventually rebuild, the international order is going to tumble down. Nobody is going to be guaranteeing trade routes anymore. A lot of the global production for export is going to vanish in a twinkling.
Sub-Saharan Africa is going to be especially hard hit, given that their population levels are only sustained through foreign importation of food and medicine, which unlike somewhere like America, you don't have the means or the knowledge to produce locally.
I don't really know enough about Sweden to comment.
>>523088 As someone who lived in New Orleans at that time, and stayed through the duration of the storm, and the weeks that followed, I can tell you that you are exaggerating.
>Nuclear attacks place military bases pretty high on the priority list, there will not be enough troops to maintain order. No one has enough nuclear weapons to even begin to think about targeting conventional forces.
Same, bro. It really bugs me that people think NOLA went into full blown anarchy after the storm. There was definitely a lot of crazy stuff going on, but it wasn't nearly as bad as how people like to imagine.
>>523103 >conventional military bases wont be targeted Do you have a source on that? I've been trying to find a source but I seem to recall seeing an article that listed conventional military installations as the third highest priority target behind nuclear launch sites and political/military leadership sites. Seems to be a stretch that they ruskies wouldn't spare 300 some-odd warheads to take out the US as a conventional military power.
>>523104 There are still plenty of instances of varying degrees of anarchy following disasters. Look at the siege of Leningrad; widespread cannibalism, rape, murder and looting. The 1930s famine in ukraine and the entirety of the eastern front durong ww2 had much of the same.
And they're almost inevitably short lived. Days to weeks.
The 1930s famine and the WW2 Eastern Front were the result of actual enemy state backed forces physically occupying the territory that went to shit. You wouldn't have that in a nuclear war unless it was accompanied by a successful ground invasion, which would be difficult to pull off.
You don't see a slide back into barbarism unless you eliminate the segments of the population that actually know how to build and maintain things.
The Russians have about 1500 warheads (depending on when you count). The US has 500 MM silos. Each silo would be targeted with 2 or 3 warheads (depending on the exact type). Thats 1250 warheads right there.
Then you have to hit the AFBs that support nuclear operations. Each base will take between 3 and 5 warheads. That's 15 to 25 warheads. Now you have to hit communications nodes and command posts, that's another 100 or so warheads, give or take. So we are up to about 1350 warheads, and we haven't hit any naval bases yet.
There are a lot more important things to hit before you get to conventional forces.
>>523206 Went to grad school, worked for some agencies and private sector non-profits involved in proliferation policy.
Firstly, in the late 1950s after Sputnik America wasn't certain it could win a nuclear war. The fear was that Russia had ICBM tech fielded by the mid 50s which would make all of America's bombers useless. By the time America had ICBMs in the early 1970s, Nixon had ushered in Detente and the Cold War was starting to wind down. Of course there was the Cuban Missile Crisis, but ultimately Russia decided that it wasn't worth their time to put missiles in Cuba and thus make the US put missiles in Turkey.
In the 1980s, for as ballsy as Reagan was a nuclear war wasn't something he was going to bother with unless Russia were to straight up invade Eastern Europe, or China making a blitz in the South Pacific. Neither occurred because neither could afford it.
tl;dr wars are expensive and a nuclear war would be really expensive
The only time a nuclear war would had been possible is IF the Rosenbergs didn't sell nuclear secrets, allowing the US to retain it's monopoly on both nuclear weaponry, high-altitude jet bombers and jet fighters. In this case, the US would have had more than enough weaponry to simply destroy the entire USSR and China outright once a ground war was provoked.
Related, in case you haven't read it yet, a recently declassified list of US Strategic Air Command targets from the mid 1950s when delivery was still aircraft-based:
>>523597 >By the time America had ICBMs in the early 1970s The US had ICBMs in service in the early 1960s.
>The only time a nuclear war would had been possible The US had a major superiority in strategic nuclear warheads until well into the Cold War. The Soviets didn't get to over 1000 warheads in service until 1966. That year the US has 11,000.
As for ICBMs, the that same year, the Soviets had about 450 ICBM warheads in service, while the US had just over 1000.
>>523731 Go fuck yourself you assburgers faggot. Everyone was fine until you got here and starting shitting up the fucking thread because you hate one guy for reasons that arent even fucking clear. Shut the fuck up. Either prove he's everything you say he is, or kill yourself you faggot.
>>523754 Some people can't shake their kneejerk reactions against tripfags (which is somewhat understandable at first given how many autists do trip on /k/). Combine this with bruised egos over getting BTFO and you have >>523784.
>>523853 I'm still waiting on you to find a thread where I was proven wrong and I threw a fit. I'll repost the link to the archive for your convenience. https://desustorage.org/k/search/tripcode/%21%21bd8BUj0eKSN/
>>523882 A trip as in tripcode, the name. Yes someone could pretend and no there is no way to know for sure but its just used in nuke and strategy threads and you would need to know a lot to pretend and whats the point desu senpai
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.