can we have a nuclear bomb appreciation thread? this invention

File: 1303357684041.jpg (35KB, 533x589px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 533x589px

>>1509577
>tfw in 100 years we won't have any recent wars to study

>this is what burgers actually believe

No, the superpowers just fought proxy wars for 70 years, you just can't see the destruction.

>>1509577
>this invention single handedly made total war impossible and brought us 70 years of peace and prosperity
>things that didn't actually happen
Reminder that two nuclear countries went into total war with one another within the last 30 years. Reminder that the U.S., Soviet Union and China both had open conflict multiple times over the last 70 years but it doesn't count to you because it was over foreign clay for the benefit of foreigners. Reminder that you are fucking retarded.

>>1509582
because themutual nuclear annihilation makes a direct confrontation between nuclear powers impossible.
Proxy wars are bad, but not nearly as bad as a total war.

>>1509577
>war impossible
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

>>1509589
>a direct confrontation between nuclear powers impossible
Pakistan and India say hi

>>1509596
without nukes, those two countries would have had a total war

>>1509589

That's pretty relative. It's destroyed the Middle East.

>>1509599
They still had a direct conventional war despite your claims that it never happened, retardo.

>>1509607
sure that sucks, but it is no comparison the destruction a direct conventional war between USA and Soviet Union would have caused.

>>1509610
>before nukes
>The seventeen-day war caused thousands of casualties on both sides and witnessed the largest engagement of armored vehicles and the largest tank battle since World War II.[10][11]

>after nukes
>Commonly known as the Kargil War, this conflict between the two countries was mostly limited.

>>1509619
>implying there weren't thousands of casualties in the kargil war
You're grasping.

>>1509638
less than a thousand in kargil war
around seven thousands in the war of 1965 (which was only stopped by intervention of superpowers)

>>1509607
A hundred localized small wars is preferable to world powers going to war every 20-30 years tho.

And I say this as a third worlder.

>>1509650
>Pakistan army losses have been difficult to determine. Pakistan confirmed that 453 soldiers were killed. The US Department of State had made an early, partial estimate of close to 700 fatalities. According to numbers stated by Nawaz Sharif there were over 4,000 fatalities. His PML (N) party in its "white paper" on the war mentioned that more than 3,000 Mujahideens, officers and soldiers were killed.[166] Another major Pakistani political party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, also says that "thousands" of soldiers and irregulars died.
Yeah, nah. You're a cunt. India had almost 2000 casualties alone.

>>1509663
well, if you go by Pakistani and Indian claims respectivly, around 13000 people died in the war of 1965
>This war saw the highest number of casualties in any of the India-Pakistan conflicts, as well as the largest number of prisoners of war since the Second World War after the surrender of more than 90,000 Pakistani military and civilians.[29] In the words of one Pakistani author, "Pakistan lost half its navy, a quarter of its air force and a third of its army".[30]

>>1509577
>made total war impossible

Not with that attitude

>>1509675
Cool story. That does not take away from the fact that the Kargil was a direct conventional war with thousands of casualties which, again, is completely contrary to your claims. Just fuck off m8.

>>1509683
Well, not impossible, but unprofitable.
Whats the point of starting a total war when the only possible result is complete mutual destruction?

File: Sprint ABM mach10 in 5s.webm (866KB, 484x360px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 484x360px

yall niggas need to read Command and Control by Eric Schlosser.

>>1509686
It was a small scale militarly confrontation, by no means a total war

>>1509694
>because themutual nuclear annihilation makes a direct confrontation between nuclear powers impossible
>get proven wrong because there was, in fact, a direct conventional war between nuclear powers
>move the goalposts because you got BTFO
Fuck off m8.

>>1509700
would you be happier if he said " direct military conflict between two relevant nuclear superpowers"?

>>1509700
look at OP
>this invention single handedly made total war impossible and brought us 70 years of peace and prosperity

I was talking about total war from the very beginning.
The other sentance I wrote was in the context of a total war

Does anyone have a better explanation as to why these past 70 years have been the most peaceful in human history?

>>1509711
>I A-ACTUALLY M-MEANT IT T-THIS WAY
>STOP PICKING MY ARGUMENT APART AND LET ME BE RIGHT
Nah.

>>1509715
Here's an explanation: They weren't and it's a giant fucking meme that they are.

>>1509721
it seems to me that you care more about the semantics than talking about the poitn made in OP

>>1509724
>refuting a direct quotation
>semantics
Lad...

>>1509721
>They weren't and it's a giant fucking meme that they are.
in the western world, it sure as fuck hasn't been a meme.

File: 140620084853-napalm-60s-restricted-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg (129KB, 980x552px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 980x552px

>>1509577
"peace and prosperity"

>>1509728
It is. The West has been at war every year since WWII ended which is in direct contrast in the years 70 years before WWI where there were at least extended periods of peace in the West.

>inb4 this is semantics

>>1509729
i'm pretty sure OP, and in general most of us, aren't vietnamese.

>>1509732
when was the last time two western nations had a drawn out military conflict with each other?

File: WorldWarII-DeathsByCountry-Barchart.png (226KB, 950x670px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 950x670px

>>1509729
>Total dead: 1,484,000–3,886,026
thats cute

>>1509735
Vietnam

File: 10733770_770905732980476_7377724246044696474_o.jpg (248KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 667x1000px

>>1509577
>"peace and prosperity"

>>1509739
>>1509735
Ooh I lied actually, it wasn't Vietnam. It was Angola.

>>1509739
russia and the us were not officially at war with each other
nor did they ever have a drawn out battle with each others forces
proxy wars don't count

>>1509577
OP I get your point. If there were no nuclear weaponary we had a third world war for sure. Don't let these autists derail this wonderful thread.

>>1509747
>russia and the us were not officially at war with each other
There an assload of wars where war was never officially declared

>nor did they ever have a drawn out battle with each others forces
Bullshit.
https://www.rt.com/news/ussr-secret-vietnam-soldiers-speak-out/

>>1509751
Thanks a lot, anon

>>1509721
>They weren't and it's a giant fucking meme that they are.
Are you just a literal retard? The last century had the lowest proportion of violent deaths of any period ever

File: twitpic-35.jpg (2MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1200px

>>1509577
"peace and prosperity"

>>1509729
>>1509741
>>1509758
Are you autistic?
Did you misread the part where OP said "for us"?

>>1509757
>They didn't die as much so obviously all these wars which happened one after another just didn't happen
Kys

File: k19_00901090.jpg (356KB, 990x705px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 990x705px

>>1509577
>"peace and prosperity"

>>1509752
>RT
>article has no sources, no video
))))))))))))))))))

File: war-icons-008-4_3_rx513_c680x510.jpg?6c3c24a06b2ec04d15c066f5e9a76a10a837ffd4.jpg (69KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 680x510px

>>1509577
""peace and prosperity""

File: lebanon-Hezbollah.jpg (631KB, 2000x1312px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 2000x1312px

>>1509577
"peace and prosperity"

>>1509764
>denying something that has been known in academia since the war began
Here's an archive of an AP article.
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=180

Here's the Wikijew
>From July 1965 to the end of 1974, fighting in Vietnam was observed by some 6,500 officers and generals, as well as more than 4,500 soldiers and sergeants of the Soviet Armed Forces. In addition, Soviet military schools and academies began training Vietnamese soldiers – in all more than 10,000 military personnel.[289]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Soviet_Union

But yeah, you just keep plugging your ears and denying reality.

>>1509751


Don't speak too soon, faggoy. With the way things are now geologically, shit could pop off in the next 10 years or so.

Whats with all the crying commies and hippies in this thread saying that the recent fifty years have been comparatively violent?

Is this what I am to expect from /his/? Fucking stop watching TV you sheep fucks and read a book. Its pretty peaceful nowadays

>>1509831
>it's peaceful if you ignore it

>>1509839
>I saw africans/arabs get kill and now the world is destroy :(

>>1509843
>it's actually peaceful, it's only brown people that are getting killed and everyone knows that doesn't count

>>1509849
>every life is sacred, even the violent rapist warmongers

>>1509866
So which is it? People are getting killed and it doesn't count as violence because they're brown or people are violent rapist warmongers who are killing other people and this is somehow peaceful. Remember: No matter how you answer you just played yourself.

>>1509871
>you just played yourself

oh man I should just give up now shouldn't I. You got me

So there is not peace in some part of the world and that's means the whole word is in turmoil to you. Do you want a fairy tale will ponies and fairies where everyone loves each other and never gets angry you fucking faggot

>>1509577
>and brought us 70 years of peace and prosperity
Tell that to the afghans.
But you're right, the nuclear bomb has made any serious conflict between nuclear-armed superpowers extremely unlikely, and for that it has done some good.

>>1509890
>some part of the world
There isn't peace anywhere in the world. There are full scale wars going on, terrorist attacks globally etc. You can claim the world is at peace when the world is at peace. Unfortunately for you, the world hasn't been at peace for over a century now.

>Do you want a fairy tale will ponies and fairies where everyone loves each other and never gets angry you fucking faggot
How very peaceful of you. You're the one claiming things are peaceful not me, Mr. Sunshine and Rainbows if you turn off reality.

Goddamn, we must have some really /fit/ posters here, all this goalpost moving must be hard work.

>>1509663
Those are really small numbers. You're kinda sort of proving his point there senpai.

>>1509899
Nah, more like some autist that thinks nitpicking on semantics = arguing

>>1509907
>7000 casualties
vs.
>~6000 casualties in 1999
Agreed. Those are some really small numbers by comparison.

>>1509898
Th amount of violence in the world today is tiny compared to any other period

>>1509911
>today is tiny compared to any other period
Except the late 19th century... 20th century before 1914... etc.

>>1509898
Why the hell are you in /his/ if you don't know you history. Lets go back 100 years. We have World War One, one of the most violent years of war where millions were being killed an entire sector of the world was geared towards destruction and war.

150 years ago Austrian Prussian War

18th Century had the Taiping rebellion, the Colonial Wars, the Civil war in the USA

but wait, today, right now, there is so much war right?

>>1509909
You can't just say anybody who disagrees with you is nitpicking or trying to argue semantics because you decided to make additions to your original point. I'd think anybody who at least has graduated high school would understand this. I'm saying this as someone who agrees with your modified point by the way, the world is certainly relatively more peaceful, especially for the West, but the OP was some fairytale bullshit.

>>1509916
so like 20 years?

>>1509919
>war used to happen
>therefore war doesn't happen now
You realize that there hasn't been a day without conflict on Earth since the 18th century?

>>1509934
Better than the 0 years between 1914 and 2016

>>1509916
>Except the late 19th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%9399#1880.E2.80.931889

> 20th century before 1914
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%9344#1900.E2.80.931919

Nigger please. Also we have been talking about the 70 years since nukes were first used, picking random decades you think were peaceful is a bit disingenuous no, or would be if you werent completely wrong

>>1509940
>Also we have been talking about the 70 years since nukes were first used,
Which have been constantly at war, including conflicts with major powers as belligerents against one another: something that cannot be said for the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

>>1509947
>Which have been constantly at war
Wars which cause far fewer deaths relative to the the population than in the past. None of the worlds 40 largest economies have gone to war with each other since ww2, we havent had a period without that this long ever before

>>1509937
>You realize that there hasn't been a day without conflict on Earth since the 18th century
>18th century

Do you realise there hasnt been a day without conflict ever? What are you some backward romantic who thinks the 18th century was all glory and empire?

>peace and prosperity is due to nuclear weapons, not to every other factor like globalization, the spread of democracy and human rights, decrease in rabid nationalism and chauvinism etc

>>1509958
>None of the worlds 40 largest economies have gone to war with each other since ww2
>What is Korea
Does China not tick your little box there m8?

>>1509960
There have been entire years without conflict, but again: the last day without war going on occurred in the 18th century, I hate to tell you this.

>>1509947
The early 20th century had the russo-jap war and the late 19th had a war between japan and china and the boxer rebellion.

Also again, single decades vs a 70 year period

>>1509973
So you go by recorded history when it supports your point.

We have better global knowledge and media these days so you should understand that all wars get reported on unlike in the 18th Century when half of of the dark continent wasn't even explored till the end of the century

>>1509973
>What is Korea
I'm sorry, did china and america declare war on each other in secret at some point during this war?

>last day without war going on occurred in the 18th century

>>1509973
>50 years ago Korea was a large economy

>>1509992
>last day without war going on occurred in the 18th century
Meant to add citation fucking needed

>>1509992
>It's not a war if you're fighting for your allies, you need to properly declare war with diplomats or everything otherwise the casualties don't count

>>1510007
What do you think would have happened after the Chinese intervention in the Korean war if nuclear weapons didn't exist? What do you think would have happened during the Cold War between Russia and the West?
>oh no abloobloobloo people are still fighting
People will always fight, but if you don't think the advent of nuclear weapons has made these conflicts lower their scale dramatically you're absolutely braindead.

>>1510007
America and china were never at war. Each was present in a third country in support of their allies. The fighting directly between them was fairly small and completely constrained by the literally stated threat of nuclear war if it was escalated

>>1510031
>The fighting directly between them was fairly small
>over a million Chinese troops committed
>over 400,000 Chinese killed in Korea
>fairly small
Don't kid yourself, China did the bulk of fighting and took the most losses of any country in Korea.

>>1510038
Both koreas each individually took more losses than China. Besides which I said the fighting directly between the us and China wad fairly small, which it absolutely was considering they both had huge militaries and massive populations.

I'm actually glad you brought Korea up, because its one if the best examples of nukes directly and unambiguously preventing the escalation of war, even the fact that the 2 most powerful belligerents invloved were never actually at war is evidence of this

>>1510031
>America and china were never at war.
Formally speaking, the US hasn't declared war on any country since WWII.

>>1510056
>Both koreas each individually took more losses than China.
South Korea actually had less military casualties than China.

It doesn't change the fact that they committed 1 million soldiers, and the US 300,000.

>>1510063
You ate correct, south Korea had less. What does it matter how many soldiers either nation sent?

>>1510068
>What does it matter how many soldiers were sent
What does it matter how much direct fighting there was? You could spend the entire war maneuvering around the enemy's army acquiring objectives to achieve strategic victory. That doesn't mean there was no war. American casualties were low because they mostly steamrolled the commies starting with Inchon.

The two Koreas took like 4 millions in civilian casualties because the war took place on their land.

>>1509940

Woah, it's almost like it's just Europe that stabilised after WW2 ended, and strong economic and military ties were formed between all the relevant countries (also no-one wishing a repeat of WW2)

File: VWM240mmAtomicAnnie01.jpg (154KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x600px

Here's a nuke cannon

File: 1280px-Nuclear_artillery_test_Grable_Event_-_Part_of_Operation_Upshot-Knothole.jpg (132KB, 1280x1016px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1280x1016px

>>1510264
Shooting said nuke

>>1510057
Interesting theory.

>>1509577
>opening up the oppurtunity to end humanity by our own hand is good because it made things a bit more peaceful

File: Hiroshima_Detroit.jpg (342KB, 1200x1473px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1200x1473px

When did you learn that blacks+democrats combo is worse than the atom bomb?

>>1510295
>comparing old generation drone Japanese to burgers

That's unfair regardless of race.

>>1509582
>What is Vietnam
>What is Korea
>What is Afghanistan

'P-peace and prosperity!'

>>1510292
nukes are by no means enough to kill off humans
they aren't even enough to bomb us back in pre-industrial age

>>1509700
>you got BTFO
It's a tiny meaningless correction anon that doesn't detract from the spirit of the post. No one got "blown the fuck out", no one is impressed by your ability to nitpick, you are not smart because you noticed a small mistake, you're not a superstar you're still just you.


Jesus, the op is just as bad too for arguing about something so stupid.

>>1509721
>They weren't
Developing countries don't matter

>>1509919
>18th century

Hippies and commies BTFO

>>1509577
Honestly nukes are a fantastic invention, considering that there's literally tens of thousands of them out there but they've been used in a military conflict only twice.

>>1509585
which war?

>>1509577
I always love threads where OP gets BTFO.

>>1509688
I agree with this. Only commies would want everyone to die.

>>1509693
Not gonna read it just because some some fag says it.
Tell me why, whats cool about the book. SOMETHING

>>1510900
Korean war

>>1509757
And the biggest jump in population.
So, if the population goes up... go ahead you can do it buddie

>>1511309
>proportion
illiterate troglodyte

>>1510279
>theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Formal
Fuck off.

>>1510901
>OP gets BTFO
?

I think globalism deserves more credit than humanity metaphorically holding a gun to its own head to keep its arms from scratching and bruising one another.

to;dr - /his/ doesn't like nukes

>>1511597
>claims the world has been at peace for 70 years
>not btfo

>>1509577
Unfortunately that era is probably over.
Now we are moving into the age of digital super weapons, which are equally as dangerous, and yet not intuitively understood by the general population because they lack a visual image of destruction.

Nuclear war was only avoided because literally EVERYONE understood how dangerous it was.

>>1511608
He didn't say 'the world'.

He said:
>us

>>1511617
>claims nuclear weapons have made war impossible
>claims the usa has been at peace for 70 years
>not btfo

>>1511620
>claims the usa has been at peace for 70 years
The USA itself has been at peace for 70 years. Even during WW2, there was basically no fighting on the continent.

>>1511617
But isn't the USA under thread of terrorist attacks? In fact that gay club shootout ocurred this year was the biggest terrorist attack on US soil ever. You can say it's not actually a war but surely the IS counts as a warring power?

File: 9 of 11.jpg (72KB, 795x470px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 795x470px

>>1511629

>>1511632
If you count terrorism and mass shootings as 'war' then sure.

>>1511639
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

>>1509762

You need to learn the distinction between a war and total war between major powers, friend.

The OP didn't fucking say nuclear weapons made wars stop, he said they've successfully deterred total war. Nobody is willing to risk a conventional war with a nuclear power, so the worst we get are shitty proxy wars in third world countries, which I'll take over another world war any day.

If you live in a 1st world country and seriously think you haven't been living in an era of peace and prosperity and you are delusional.

File: 1433174798862.jpg (17KB, 367x388px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 367x388px

>>1509738
>that x axis

>>1510274
That doesn't look safe.

File: 1439931507430.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>1511784
the 50's were a crazy time

>>1510590
This is what I try to tell people. In a way it actually makes Nuclear Weapons more frightening, because Mutually-Assured Destruction is not real and a Nuclear War might actually be "winnable".

>>1512080
People seriously overestimate the power of nuclear weapons. They think that MAD is assured if two nuclear-armed countries bomb each other. The fact is, not only is MAD not assured, it's actually very unlikely. Our missile defense systems have by now far outpaced our missile delivery systems, meaning that any nuclear exchange will probably just result in a lot of nuclear fallout landing in random places, contaminating the ocean, and probably some cities being vaporized - but neither side will be "destroyed", and the war will continue. A nuclear war of today is winnable, and that's a pretty scary thought.

>>1512070
they sure were

https://youtu.be/OpnbTlEd5NM

>>1509965
>>1511600
Nah senpai
Cold war might have very well been more destructive than WW2 were it not for nuclear armament
Globalism plays a part in making countries friendlier to each other, but there were/are still hot regions that would be capable to trigger total war were it not for MAD of nukes

>>1512070

We have to remember, nuclear weapons were not more cost effective in terms of destruction-dollars until the mid-Fifties; about when the world powers started treating them as different kinds of weapons.

>>1509898
you need to tone down on the tv newscasts friend
go read a book instead
Learn what the words "comparatively" and "relative" mean

>>1509965
>peace and prosperity is due to nuclear weapons
yes

>not to every other factor like globalization
globalization is possible because of nukes

>the spread of democracy and human rights
lol

>decrease in rabid nationalism and chauvinism
double lol

>>1509582
They only happen to irrelevant people.

>>1512424

The risk of total annihilation isn't necessary for nukes to act as a deterrent. Any deterrent works by convincing the opponent that you will hurt them beyond their tolerance for pain.

>>1509581
We will have cool civil wars to study.
and the great internet flame wars of 2003-2006, 2020-2025, 2067, and 2086-2090.

>>1512735
>globalization is possible because of nukes
/s4s/

>>1512735
>globalization is possible because of nukes

Globalization was a thing from the 1890s until 1914, the World Wars just derailed it for a while.

>>1512424
>A nuclear war of today is winnable, and that's a pretty scary thought.

A nuclear war was winnable for the United States from 1948 until 1965, but nobody in the US government went for it because the cost simply wasn't worth it. Who cares about glassing Russia if it means several million Americans have to die in the process? It's not just about MAD, it's more like what this guy said >>1513741

File: wphistAbomb1961gTzarBombaMushy.L.jpg (228KB, 1280x1013px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1280x1013px

>b-but some small scale conflicts here and there!!!
I'm really sure the cold war would have been a lot hotter without nuclear weapons.
I don't even want to imagine what Europe would look like.

>>1514182
>Europe

It would probably have like 1/5 of its current population.

I didn't know /his/ was full of such retards who pretended not to understand a clear statement and argued semantics to feel intelligent. One has to wonder if they're just teenagers trying to fit in during discussions they don't understand.

File: 3d704dac2ece63a1b94b380aa944724f.jpg (87KB, 1000x715px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1000x715px

>>1514193
With lots of batlles of <insert Western European capital here>
It sure would have been nice

>>1512424
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad

You're wrong, MAD is the only outcome of nuclear war between major powers

>>1509728
there literally, still to this day, are wars going on INSIDE europe, not to even mention all the proxy wars ruining other regions of the world

>>1509757
The last century includes both World Wars and the rise of Communism. You are full of shit, retard.

File: faggot.jpg (42KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x281px

>>1510017
>People will always fight, but if you don't think the advent of nuclear weapons has made these conflicts lower their scale dramatically you're absolutely braindead

not what he argued about, not the point of OP.
you are retarded.

>>1514333
>MAD is the only outcome of nuclear war between major powers
Wrong.
A first strike combined with sufficient ABM capability could win a nuclear war.

File: rise-islamic-state-review-009.jpg (456KB, 2060x1236px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 2060x1236px

>peace
>and
>prosperity

>>1509655
>>1509655
>>1509655
THIS

File: eefd470a6d4ca411958d47fff73a9a67.jpg (42KB, 506x316px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 506x316px

>>1509577
...Right

>>1509937
>1900-1914
>Better than the 0 years between 1914 and 2016

>He doesn't know about the revolutions in China, the Boer wars, the Russo-Japanese war, the Filipino guerrilla war with America, the Mexican civil war (just one of many going on in South America anyhow), or the ongoing unrest and rebellions in Russia that foreshadowed the Bolshevik revolt, not to mention the ongoing mess that was(and still is) the Balkans

Face it senpai, the early 1900's sucked and were riddled with war. The funny thing is, probably the only reason you think those periods were peaceful compared to OP's period is for the same reasons he thinks that the post-WW2 world was peaceful: the powers of the western world weren't actively trying to kill each other on their front lawns, and were instead trying to compete for global dominance.

>>1510038
>Implying a million Chinese is a significant amount
We're talking about red China here, those numbers are jack shit compared to what they would field in a total war.

>>1514333
Nobody has used MAD since the 60s

We use NUTS now.

>>1510279
>Interesting theory.
Interesting fact desu, we're not talkign about times where the US "basically declared war" or times when it "practically declared war". We're talking about times when there was an announcement and America said to the whole world "we declare war on this country".

And that hasn't happened since WW2

>>1511632
>In fact that gay club shootout ocurred this year was the biggest terrorist attack on US soil ever.
Not not really. 9/11 still has quite the lead on it. about 50 or so people died at that gay club shootout, compared to the 3000 or so killed in 9/11.

>>1512070
Honestly, I think it would be kind of fun to watch a movie about a nuclear war that doesn't just end civilization. Mainly just because I like that aesthetic of dudes fighting or marching underneath mushroom clouds.

>>1515207
You mean that you want a movie where nukes are only used tactically and not strategically. I'd watch it desu.

File: 800px-Trident_II_missile_image.jpg (117KB, 800x965px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x965px

Question about 2nd strike in actuality.

Do you suppose any of the nuclear powers to actually retaliate with LoW (mid air) if there is a nuclear assault, lets say with 50 warheads, with no apparent co-occurring ground, air and or naval attack?

I figure in reality none of the nations would actually respond with an immediate second strike if there's no indication of ground invasion. What are your thoughts?

>>1516896
I think because of how radically new the situation would be (the idea of actually using nukes being as crazy as it is) anything could happen

Once you reach a point something as insane as that happens I think anything from there is possible

Either absolutely no response, full nuclear annihilation or any kind of extreme response that will be available later on