nuclear deterrence

>>3345061
It's a matter of time.

Every empire has fall. Do you think USA, Russia por CHINA would go out without a bang?

I think you´re right OP
> Will a real nuclear war will ever actually happen?
A small one in Asia or Africa probably

>>3345061
>Do you think we would have already had another huge conventional World War by now if nukes didn't exist and the global powers weren't always threatening eachother with mutually assured destruction?

yes. nuclear weapons restrict the tendency towards escalation

>Will a real nuclear war will ever actually happen?

yes probably. Very unlikely to be between the big boys though (West, Russia or China) I think its more likely between middle eastern states, or india-pakistan. depends alot on who will be the next nuclear powers

>>3345061
No on the conventional war. Deterrence works even in absence of atomic weapons, and while they raise the cost of conflict, they don't ultimately change the strategic balance of the Cold War. NATO is richer and more populous, and is likely to win an all-out war. Doing so is more expensive and bloody than the projected benefits, so is not done.

As for the second question, I suppose it will, eventually. Human civilization doesn't look like its disappearing in the next few millennia, and that's enough time for almost anything to happen.

>>3345664
Chicano phoneposter

>>3345061
>Will a real nuclear war will ever actually happen?
Definitely, but like everyone else is saying it will hopefully be restricted to a couple small nations and the real nuclear powers will be dissuaded from using their arsenals on each other after it's over.

I think it is rather global economy, wealth of west and its interconnection that keeps everything from going into war.
I consider war a continuation of politics and politics a continuation of economy (at least in our times).
So if economy is sturdy (serfs and farming based) you can wage war.
If it is fragile like the one we have today, you don't want to disrupt it. So through politics money dictate not to have war. At least in the west.

>>3345804
Ehh, people in the early 20th century used that argument for why something like WW1 can never happen. Yes, economies integrate and that makes war more expensive, but there's usually someone, at some point, who thinks that what they can get from war is more than what they lose from peace and trade.

What about gas and ww2

>>3345840
Well, it is not physics so, might have been wrong back in the day, might be right today.

>>3345869
But it's an argument that fundamentally relies on an interest calculation always turning out the same way: Economic integration does not in and of itself halt war, it simply makes war more expensive. The later years of WW2 for the USSR, Japan and Germany demonstrated that in extremis, you can keep a population an extremely low standard of living for a prolonged period without societal collapse. It only prevents war as long as whatever political elite wants the money they get from trade more than whatever it is they think they'll get in war; and since most war spoils are not in and of themselves economic, you're not even doing balance sheet calculations, you're hoping that these guys will like apples more than oranges.

At least for me, that's a pretty shaky foundation to predict perpetual peace.

>>3345848
gas / chemical weapons didn't have nearly the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons. Using either would make the world turn against you but at least with nukes the bad publicity might be worth it, since you could take out most of your enemy in one fell swoop

>>3345061
I don't think a nuclear bomb will ever be dropped in a conventional war ever again

>>3345664
>Do you think USA, Russia por CHINA would go out without a bang?
Remind me how the Soviet Union ended.

File: Atomic bomb 7.webm (510KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1280x720px

A nuclear war will probably happen one day by mistake, somebody will do something that'll be misinterpreted by somebody else and nobody wants to be the leader not to retaliate if hit with a nuclear weapon, it would be political suicide.

>>3347233
I´ve read some european military opinions that they would prefer a nuclear aftermath to a chemical warfare one in case of a NATO - Warpac land conflict. They figured the soil would be useless to grow food.

File: nuke2.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>3351175
That depends on what kind of chemicals are used. If it's G-series (Soman,Tabun, Sarin), there won't be much long-term effects, VX is more persitant, but of course will degrade in time.
With nuclear weapons it depends on how many, how strong and at what altitude they are ignited.
Both need extensive decontamination meausures, but C-weapons leave the infrastructure intact, nukes don't. I'd say it's far easier to rebuild after C-weapons, than after N-weapons (not taking into account any spooky unkown ebil C-weapons or salted N-weapons).
I'd love to see your sources on that, if you have them at hand.

>>3349670
So basically this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La4Dcd1aUcE