NationStates Jolt Archive


Nuclear Winter

Wilgrove
16-08-2008, 00:44
So, is Nuclear Winter inevitabile, and if it is inevitabile, then what will start the chain reaction?

Honestly, I think that it is inevitabile, and it'll start in the Middle East. Iran will gain Nuclear capability and lob one at Iseral. Iseral will lob one back, and then Pakistan & India will lob one at each other and that'll just start the whole chain reaction of the human race screwing itself over.
West Pacific Asia
16-08-2008, 00:51
Pakistan & India won't go at it just because of Iran & Isreal.

Isreal would probably fire first anyway.

I'd be more worried about Russia at the moment.
Sarkhaan
16-08-2008, 00:52
Why would India and Pakistan attack each other because of a conflict in Iran and Israel?
Ashmoria
16-08-2008, 00:52
i think that nuclear winter is highly unlikely.

iran might shoot its ONE nuke into israel. israel might respond with one or 2 of their own.

thats where it ends
Wilgrove
16-08-2008, 00:53
Why would India and Pakistan attack each other because of a conflict in Iran and Israel?

Because they'll think that since Israel and Iran are at it, then that gives them the green light to do it too?
Lunatic Goofballs
16-08-2008, 00:54
Sounds like a possible solution to Global Warming.
Wilgrove
16-08-2008, 00:55
Sounds like a possible solution to Global Warming.

Futurama did prove that Nuclear Winter would cancel out the effect of Global Warming. *nod*
The South Islands
16-08-2008, 00:56
No one will participate in a true nuclear exchange because everyone knows how dear the consequences are.
Wilgrove
16-08-2008, 00:58
No one will participate in a true nuclear exchange because everyone knows how dear the consequences are.

Too bad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acts like he needs Prozac for more than half the time.
Lunatic Goofballs
16-08-2008, 00:59
Futurama did prove that Nuclear Winter would cancel out the effect of Global Warming. *nod*

Well that's fact enough for me. :)
Ashmoria
16-08-2008, 01:01
Too bad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acts like he needs Prozac for more than half the time.
but good thing he doesnt have nukes
The South Islands
16-08-2008, 01:04
Too bad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acts like he needs Prozac for more than half the time.

The dude may be crazy, but he's not an idiot. Nothing is served by lofting a nuke other then getting your nation glassed.
Lord Tothe
16-08-2008, 01:16
Sounds like a possible solution to Global Warming.

Therefore, it is our duty to provoke the nuclear holocaust by pissing off Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.

*sends Bush a threatening letter signed "rusha chyna north korea and iRan"*
Caucistan
16-08-2008, 01:23
Middle East? Not gonna happen. The -most- we'd see out of there is a small scale nuclear war. While bad enough, that is literally nothing compared to a full nuclear war, followed by the even more horrifying nuclear winter (which would make you wish you had died in the initial blasts). Even by the most conservative estimates, hundreds and hundreds of millions of people worldwide would die, and by the worst estimates it would destroy all complex life not deep under the oceans.

To answer the question, though; there is no way that a global thermonuclear war could happen anytime in the forseeable future.
Ifreann
16-08-2008, 01:25
I've got plenty of warm clothes, so it doesn't matter to me.
Skyland Mt
16-08-2008, 01:40
Why would India and Pakistan attack each other because of a conflict in Iran and Israel?

Didn't you know? All those Muslim countries are the same. That's also why mixing up Shiite and Suni doesn't detract from McCain's experience.:rolleyes:
New Manvir
16-08-2008, 01:40
Therefore, it is our duty to provoke the nuclear holocaust by pissing off Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.

*sends Bush a threatening letter signed "rusha chyna north korea and iRan"*

put a dog turd in the letter, that'd piss anyone off.
Lapse
16-08-2008, 01:40
I think the days of traditional warfare are all but completely over. It is a global economy based on the capitalist system. Nuclear war only damages everyone. A cheaper way for a takeover is economically. Buy out the other countries companies.
Skyland Mt
16-08-2008, 01:48
I think the days of traditional warfare are all but completely over. It is a global economy based on the capitalist system. Nuclear war only damages everyone. A cheaper way for a takeover is economically. Buy out the other countries companies.

Yes, but it still doesn't rule out a nuclear exchange. Religious fanatics don't always view things in logical geopolitical terms. Personally however, I think the greatest threat is possibly that of a single accident being interpereted as an attack, and setting it all off. An accidental launch, a small asteroid hitting in a nuclear country during a time of international tension, anything that could be falsely interpereted as an attack. We had such close calls during the last Cold War.
Lapse
16-08-2008, 01:54
Yes, but it still doesn't rule out a nuclear exchange. Religious fanatics don't always view things in logical geopolitical terms. Personally however, I think the greatest threat is possibly that of a single accident being interpereted as an attack, and setting it all off. An accidental launch, a small asteroid hitting in a nuclear country during a time of international tension, anything that could be falsely interpereted as an attack. We had such close calls during the last Cold War.

Religous fanatic groups do not have the resources to build, maintain and use a nuclear weapon. The days of global inter-nation war are almost over. (yes, I know Georgia and Russia are having a tiff)

Terrorists and anti-terrorism mobs are the closest we will have to war I believe unless in the next 100 years there is a major economic crisis (for example, if people continue panicing about climate change and oil.
West Pacific Asia
16-08-2008, 02:03
You know, the Tunguska event was 20,000 times more powerful then Hiroshima.

World seems fine still as does Siberia where it happened.
New Moreton
16-08-2008, 02:21
Therefore, it is our duty to provoke the nuclear holocaust by pissing off Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.

*sends Bush a threatening letter signed "rusha chyna north korea and iRan"*

Just make sure you right it in big letters, and maybe red crayon ;)
Grave_n_idle
16-08-2008, 02:31
Yes, but it still doesn't rule out a nuclear exchange. Religious fanatics don't always view things in logical geopolitical terms. Personally however, I think the greatest threat is possibly that of a single accident being interpereted as an attack, and setting it all off. An accidental launch, a small asteroid hitting in a nuclear country during a time of international tension, anything that could be falsely interpereted as an attack. We had such close calls during the last Cold War.

Let's not be too ready to look at religious fanatics.

Invasion of Iraq - main steering power, the US (which CLAIMS not to be a theocracy)

Georgia conflict - main steering power, Russia - non theocratic

Balkan states - conflict mainly along 'national' lines, rather than religious.

Contested states for China and India - conflict is about territory, not religion.


Pretty much all of the big stuff, certainly ongoing stuff - has been about territory. And it's usually either by a party that terms itself as acting non-religiously, or that is a non-religious power.


The most likely scenario for war is Cuba Crisis type brinkmanship. Which means, the most likely instigator of the next BIG war, will be the US.
Skyland Mt
16-08-2008, 04:03
Religous fanatic groups do not have the resources to build, maintain and use a nuclear weapon. The days of global inter-nation war are almost over. (yes, I know Georgia and Russia are having a tiff)

Terrorists and anti-terrorism mobs are the closest we will have to war I believe unless in the next 100 years there is a major economic crisis (for example, if people continue panicing about climate change and oil.

I hate to tell you, but climate change and oil shortages are very legitimate concerns, and together could, in worst case senarios, lead to a major mass extinction and an economic crisis eclipsing the Great Depression.

It is true however that disasters can get blown out of proportion by public panic. 911, for example, is far outdone in terms of direct loss of life and material damage by many other disasters and attacks. The primary damage caused by a terrorist attack is the fear, and resulting irrational actions it provokes. For example, 911 cost America many of its hard-won civil liberties, not because those liberties had to die, but because people were so stunned by the visceral horror of the attacks that for many, logic, restraint, and criticism of those in power were no longer part of the equation.

Actually, the question of public panic has some bearing on the nuclear issue. Russia is not going to attack America, nor is Iran particularily likely to. But enough public fear of a nuclear attack could destroy America's soul as surely as an actual nuclear barrage could destroy it physically.
Ryadn
16-08-2008, 04:55
Summer's trudging closer
and a flurry of white as well
It's the heart of nuclear winter
and you can bet I'm scared as hell
Skyland Mt
16-08-2008, 05:26
Let's not be too ready to look at religious fanatics.

Invasion of Iraq - main steering power, the US (which CLAIMS not to be a theocracy)

Georgia conflict - main steering power, Russia - non theocratic

Balkan states - conflict mainly along 'national' lines, rather than religious.

Contested states for China and India - conflict is about territory, not religion.


Pretty much all of the big stuff, certainly ongoing stuff - has been about territory. And it's usually either by a party that terms itself as acting non-religiously, or that is a non-religious power.


The most likely scenario for war is Cuba Crisis type brinkmanship. Which means, the most likely instigator of the next BIG war, will be the US.

Two corrections: one, the US does not merely claim not to be a theocracy, it isn't. It does, unfortunately, have theocratic leanings, but it does not really qualify.

Second, while the US is almost certain to be a major player in any global or nuclear conflict, it won't nessissarily be the only or even primary instigator. To be more precise, the US is likely to fire, or to provoke someone else into firing a nuke by overreacting to another nation's provocation;).

I'm just sick of everyone blaming the US for everything. It will almost certainly be involved in any hypothetical nuclear conflict, but I don't see it as nesissarily being much more likely than anyone else to be the primary instigator.
Western Mercenary Unio
16-08-2008, 09:11
oh,well if nuclear winter does come,we finns will survive it!i'm sure we will!Atleast kind of semi-sure of it!
Gravlen
16-08-2008, 11:59
So, is Nuclear Winter inevitabile, and if it is inevitabile, then what will start the chain reaction?

Honestly, I think that it is inevitabile, and it'll start in the Middle East. Iran will gain Nuclear capability and lob one at Iseral. Iseral will lob one back, and then Pakistan & India will lob one at each other and that'll just start the whole chain reaction of the human race screwing itself over.

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9035/itisinev128633576860932rd4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Of course, you're wrong. It will be when the US nukes Canada for a percieved slight made by a mountie, right after France nukes Zanzibar because they don't like the sound of the name and Britain nukes Iceland due to a fierce fish slapping incident.

It's almost as plausible as your unfounded scenario...
Dinaverg
16-08-2008, 12:07
Wait, it's the Nuclear winter you're worried about? Not the part with, you know, nukes?
Adunabar
16-08-2008, 12:32
Pshaw, nukes don't kill you, they make you a superhero.
Hydesland
16-08-2008, 13:08
So, is Nuclear Winter inevitabile, and if it is inevitabile, then what will start the chain reaction?


No. .