OT-How have we avoided nuclear war so far?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I have lurked with amazement for three weeks-I see the alarmist posts about China, Panama Canal, Putin, ad infinitum...I wonder what "paradigm" shift we have experienced that makes the world more susceptible to detonating nuclear devices-We have come through countless situations of enormous political tension since WWII without the detonation-How come? Is it a higher power? Is it the mass instinct for survival??

-- Futureshock (gray@matter.com), January 20, 2000

Answers

The main reason is that it is massively stupid to nuke somebody. They have an unfortunate tendency to nuke you back.

And even when they can't, the advantages of doing it vs. the disadvantages have not been positive since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I personally believe we'll never see a state v. state nuclear war.

I expect a terrorist nuke to go off somewhere in my lifetime, however.

-- John H Krempasky (johnk@dmv.com), January 20, 2000.


"The main reason is that it is massively stupid to nuke somebody."

Since when has this mattered to an alcoholic? And......you don't believe that some of the more recent Russian leaders haven't fallen victim to too much vodka?

-- (4@5.6), January 20, 2000.


One thing that has changed is that lately more radical groups have obtained or in some cases, may have obtained, nuclear weapons. By that, I mean that groups who may be satisfied to die and lose everything, so long as their enemies and those they hate also die and lose everything, have gained access to nuclear weapons, especially since Russia destabilized and corruption was given almost free reign leaving their nukes under less reliable control.

Nations like India and Pakistan have nukes nowadays, in what seems to be an accelerating process of "spreading the radioactive wealth". I don't think most truly powerful nations would use nukes, because they have too much to lose. It is when weak nations or terrorists get control of nukes that I start to worry more, because they know that that is their only path to power, notoriety, whatever (look at Russia's decision, now that they know they can't compete with the west with conventional weapons because their economy won't support it, to use nukes if they are pressed even if the other side hasn't done so...).

But in the final analysis, since I don't know of a weapon except nukes that isn't at least occasionally used once it is available, I think that the real reason nukes haven't been used yet (after the initial use in Japan...)is that God is holding back worldwide nuclear war for His own purposes. There are plenty of madmen who would be willing to use nukes in this world, but they're sticking to conventional bombs and guns and terrorism right now, and its not because they've really, deep down, got a "good heart". They just haven't gotten the opportunity, or haven't followed through with their destructive bent to this point even when they did have the opportunity.

That's my opinion.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), January 20, 2000.


Point well made, but however, you seem to be forgetting the existance of Rogue States getting their greedy little psycho-mitts on a nuke. Places like Iran and Iraq, with the latest news on those morons, never mind the mass-delusional, hyper-paranoid country of North Korea. All it would take is for them to decide to wage a "Holy War" or a strike against "Capitalist Oppression" and it's all over.

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), January 20, 2000.

God restrains the evil until the time HE is ready to judge the earth. I hope I'm with HIM when they start the fighting of the War of the Gods....

-- INever (inevercheckmy@onebox.com), January 20, 2000.


it IS a great `wonder` isn`t it,how we have so far avoided such a fate!? not that long ago it was restricted to `TWO BOYS WITH TOYS`....but in the last decade or so it has become a GANG of boys with toys. and the gang mentality is a frightening thing when you are talking NUKES, not handguns!! ...add to that the increasing "turf" wars that are ongoing at this point and time with the fighting for "leadership" of so many "gangs" at once......Russia, Pakistan, USA,Iran, etc. and i think we all better HOPE there is a higher power to help us through this time we`re living in!....

-- mutter (murmur@ya.com), January 20, 2000.

There are still so many other ways to kill people, or to make your enemies miserable, that the nuke solution can be tabled indefinitely. Which is what's happened.

If for some reason conventional warfare were no longer possible, we would have nuked each other long ago (& then we wouldn't be having this nice conversation).

But that "God" explanation works for me also.

-- I've puzzled (over@this.too), January 20, 2000.


To be sure the next one will be with sticks and stones.

-- Notforlong (Fsur@aol.com), January 20, 2000.

I vote for biochem weapons. Growing a disease culture and delivering it is LOTS easier and thus cheaper than developing a nuke program. Hell, if I was interested in taking this country out, I'd contaminate the various municipal water supplies throughout the country; they're not guarded(and they should be). Anyway, I think we'll see this sort of stuff on a large scale before we see nukes on a large scale; it just makes more economic sense for the aggressor.

I do think we'll see nuclear terrorist attacks. To quote John H Krempasky: "I expect a terrorist nuke to go off somewhere in my lifetime, however." I expect one in this country in the next 15 years.

Peace, Y'all.

Still holding onto my preps(and making more as the days go by),

Don

-- Shimoda (enlighten@me.com), January 20, 2000.


Any country that uses nuclear weapons offensively, and openly, certainly risks massive retaliation. However, if an organization or country thinks it can detonate such a weapon WITHOUT ANYONE KNOWING WHO SET IT OFF, it may well do so. But by doing so, it misses the propiganda benefit of such a strick... It would only be doing so in order to inflict direct harm and general terror. So the benefit for doing so is less than other terrorist weapons.

Would a rogue state do so? Possibly. I don't consider all world leaders perfectly sane and rational...and a zealot could certainly be willing to achieve martordom. That is why various groups are unwilling to entrust, say, Iraq with nuclear weapons...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), January 20, 2000.



I just finished reading a nice article from a book that is just being released about the Russia / USA danger of accidentally getting into a nuclear confict.

The author,I cannot remember his name, was discussing the launch of a private rocket from the Norwegion sea, or what ever, and that while the Russian civil autorities had been notified of this test, the civil authorities had not relayed it to the military.

When the missile went up, the Russian nuclear suitcases went off, as he told the story, there are three of these. One Yelsin had, one the deputy had, and the third one is with the head of the military. If all three are activated, it takes all three to launch. If only two are activated for whatever reason, then two have to hit the launch button....etc, on down the line.

In this case, if the author is to be believed, the deputy and the military chief both hit their launch buttons, and only Yeltsin did not, and wanted to wait and see where the tracking of the missile was going. It eventually went West.

The point the man was making is that at that time, before Kosovo, Yeltsin and Clinton were getting along fine. It is his thought that later, Yeltsin would not have stalled.

The scarey thing to realize, is that 2 out of 3 DID HIT THE LAUNCH BUTTON. And both of them are still in office

-- Jim Sharp (JIM4RLORD@aol.com), January 20, 2000.


JIM..WHAT IS EVEN SCARIER......than the fact that two of them are still in office is the fact that the `third` one ow would be mr. PUTIN..!!!! need i say more????........

-- mutter (murmur@ya.com), January 20, 2000.

JIM..WHAT IS EVEN SCARIER......than the fact that two of them are still in office is the fact that the `third` one now would be mr. PUTIN..!!!!.....and keep in mind this time it would be after the kosovo fiasco. need i say more????........

-- mutter (murmur@ya.com), January 20, 2000.

IMHO we will never really know.

One must acknowledge that there is alot more that goes on behind closed doors--and behind encrypted conversations--than ever hits the public eye. You and I must follow trends to pick up any sort of recognizable "trail of evidence" that leads us to a reasonable conclusion, when a conclusion is reachable!

I see too much of "I saw it in the news...so here's what's happening"

1. do you know how that person/ideology/culture thinks?

2. do you know the complete story (trail of events) that lead up to the issue currently in the news?

3. do you have enough information to really KNOW what's going on?

If you honestly say "no" to any of the above, then your understanding of the issue is incomplete, and any conclusions you make are at best incomplete and at worst out to lunch...

One must (by this I mean me too) work within acceptable limits of error (parameters) and make decisions based upon incomplete information.

Put your souls and trust in Almighty God and rest easy. God will judge you for what choices you made. He remembers mercy.

FWIW

-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), January 20, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ