If World War Three broke out, would you sign up?

Crni:

Depends on motive.

I think that global third world war would be a fight for survival - the stronger will take everything and survive, the weaker will die. There wouldn't be losing side in that war. According to old simulation of population growth provided by the Club of Rome and summed up in book The Limits to Growth in 1972, we are reaching point when our planet will be too polluted for living, resources depleted, not enough food and clean water for overpopulated world, so diplomacy won't help us anymore.

On the other hand, religious wars definitely seems to be pointless and stupid to me. Killing other men because they believe in different book, that's some mind blowing bullshit.
 
Crni Vuk said:
And you could argue that WW2 - and the holocaust, have been a direct result from the outcome of WW1, it's not rare that some historians see WW2 just as WW1 with a long brake inbetween.

The thing is, even if you name examples like Poland or Germany from WW2, what wars usually do is that they always leave one side as looser. Always. There can't be two winners in war. One side dominates the other one. And this leads to issues in the long run.

If you want real solutions that work even after decades than they have to be made with diplomacy, with common goals and interests. Like the European Union. The fact that Germany was needed after WW2 because of the Soviets made sure that Europe would face a time of stability and peace. Germany, France, Britain etc. had common goals and interests outside of their typical rivalry. Nuclear weapons changed the face of future conflicts. And luckily a few individuals like Churchill thought that they should not repeat something like Versailles.

I understand that extreme situations are very complicated and I definitely support the idea that people and nations should always have the right to defend them self from any aggression on their territory, though we should never forget that looser never forget, that's simply how it goes, I learned that lesson from the Yugoslavian Civil War. When ever a side is facing humiliation or a defeat, they will remember it. There have been more examples where "war" or "violence" has just lead to even more violence. Like the middle east. Syria, Libya, Iraq, the list is pretty much endless. Nations are not personalities or like individuals and nations should be capable to forgive. Otherwise you just end up in the same old stupid cycle that we experience pretty much for the last 10 000 years. Wars have never pushed humanity further as a species. Even the idea that wars lead to many new inventions is actually a fallacy, while there are very often new inventions in war they usually serve only the conflict, it requires huge resources which could be spend somewhere else.

It is very questionable if war has ever solved issues in the long run. I mean we all sometimes feel the need for revenge. And no one wants to be the looser. But I believe there are simply way to many examples where wars and conflicts have not solved anything. And using maybe one or two situations where actually improved the situation, maybe, which is also questionable, is not enough reasons to keep the idea as whole.

It's simply a pointless game.

Click to expand...


To which I'll raise you a question: Would the European Union have become a reality without the funeral pyre of the old order that was the second act of the European Civil War?

Maybe, just maybe, the trauma of the war was necessary for us to realize what a bunch of fucking morons we all are and recognize nationalism for what it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe, I am pretty sure that it had a huge effect. But as you know ... old rivalries have very long lives. I guess the bigger motivation was the fear about the Soviet Union. And economical considerations which have lead to the European Union as we know it today.

Who knows how things would have ended for Europe if there was for example no Soviet Union and the fear of The Bomb
 
You all have very strong opinions, and all of them are genuine and heartfelt. But taking motivations and reasoning out of the picture, war is what it is, war. Men killing other men. People are going to die, and whether or not it was for a good reason is irrelevant. Someone had the guile to say "Go die for me" and it happened. It's happening. It will continue to happen. Until not someone, but everyone, decides to cast down their own rights, as human beings, to not have emotion, to not show emotion. To live, without expressing yourself forever. Because that's what war is, it's in our blood. Men will always kill men, even without reason, because you can't control that outcome. You can't make it not happen. You can't (at least not yet), alter the minds of every single person into not having that bloodlust. I'm not saying all human beings kill. Because they don't, there will always be the radical who does it anyway, for whatever reason. And there are the noble people in your current nation, dying for whatever reason your government sees fit.

Taking that all into perspective, if another World War broke out, for whatever reason, I would be right next to every other kid. I would go. And before you hound me out of here for being a martyr or having irrational values, listen to me. I consider myself a hedonist, even a bohemian. Not in a radical sense that I cast away the shackles of modern society to become "One with the world", but that I try my best to be happy, and do "weird" or "stupid" things to try to meet that goal. I'll never find genuine happiness, and neither will you. Because that doesn't exist on this vile fucking rock. I would join because of my moral values. I look at my baby brother and sister, my bent, mean, and old father. My frail mother, and I can't help but think about what would happen to them if I didn't fight. I couldn't sit here, and know that everyone I ever loved is going to die anyway. I'd have to go, I'd have to try to do something. And maybe, just maybe. I'd be part of the wave that pushed back whoever was trying to kill the ones I love.

I know that all sounds stupid, and ignorant. But it's the way I feel about it. People are going to die regardless. Whether it was me, or my family, or the next person's. And if I was staring at the sky, my body ripped full of holes, I could die happily, knowing I at least tried to keep that ungodly, atrocious side of humanity at bay. That's stupidity at it's finest. Thinking that my one, meaningless life could turn the tide of an unnecessary and sacrificial war. Because that's what it will be. Big countries butting heads because they don't want to fucking get along, and millions of innocent people will die. I love my country, and even though it's populated by a huge majority of piece of shit assholes, who care about nothing but themselves. There are still good people here, everywhere. Everywhere in the world there are good people who care about other human beings, who aren't selfish, desensitized, worthless assholes who care about life. Who care about the big picture, and would happily walk into that absolute wall of death, knowing that it's not about them. And that, it what hope is.

Even with the heaviness of this topic, I feel like we can find hope in it. Being optimistic is stupidity, but working at something to make your dreams come true? That's what we all need to be doing. (This is never going to fucking happen, but I'll say it anyway) If we can try to be better people, all of us. Not me. Not you, EVERYONE. Then we might be able to make this world not only livable, but enjoyable. For everyone. People need happiness, because without it? This rock isn't going to spin anymore.
 
A third world war would be the REAL war to end all wars, not because we will learn from the destruction, but because there will be no one left to learn, or wage war again. Nuclear weapons are a game changer.



As for me personally joining a fight, it deppends heavily on the cause. If it's a cuase I believe in then yes. If it's about say, retaking the Malvinas, then yes. Am I an idiot for it? Maybe, but having the 73% of my territorial sea controlled by a nation 15.000 kilometers away under the excuse of a tiny 2.000 inhabitants village in one of the islands really boils my blood.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm curious how much damage a real nuclear war would cause.

First of all, humanity has detonated thousands of nuclear warheads, and none of us notice much, 2 people have died from nuclear explosions, outside of warfare.

Realistically, an all-out emptying of the magazines won't happen, so an "all out" nuclear exchange, in reality, would only involve a portion of the total arsenal. We can arbitrarily decide on one third of the total arsenal, meaning USA and Russia would launch 3-6 thousand each - which depending on how condensed they want to hit, would mostly just cover each others (dropping every major town and city, larger cities with several hits), if a bit more focused on major cities, a global bombardment could ensue. We would still only see major cities targeted though, and population losses comparable to a summary of the majority of large urban populations, maybe a half a billion dead once the bomb-rain is over (including a global bombardment).

Unrealistically, the entire armament is emptied, and every warhead flies, resulting in the above, times three, a denser coverate of important towns, I've seen maps where my humble town of Trondheim is targeted twice, as a theoretical target. Two nukes for a population centre with more than 100 000 people in them. I've seen mentions of Soviet targets in Denmark including Roskilde, a purely cultural little hub of no harm - precisely because of its cultural significance.

When it's all said and done, nukes are not weapons to "destroy all life", but weapons to "destroy a whole city", when such be needed.
It's not even about destroying all of Denmark, or half of Denmark, or a tenth or hundredth of Denmark. A hydrogen bomb exploding in Roskilde would only be a faint glimmer seen from space, the rest would look the same. Denmark would be in chaos, since Roskilde has been obliterated, and maybe 20 000 are dead.

"20 000? That's a bit anticlimactic... " yeah, man, it's Denmark
 
Gonzalez said:
You are way off target there. Where do you get your facts? Listen to the scientists. Even a small nuclear conflict could trigger a catastrophe.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the very immediate effects (specifically, Denmark was in the case of a very specific attack, at Roskilde, assuming it was not a nuclear all out world-wide armageddon). A simultaneous detonation of several thousand nukes (of which we have detonated only a portion, over several decades, most of them under ground, over ocean, or atmospheric) would have very serious impacts on the environment, entire countries losing all of their connecting centres, and so on

but we wouldn't die out, at all.

If we are to speculate an entire range of events, then
1. Nuclear exchange itself, worst case holocaust scenario, all cities on earth are wiped out, half a billion die, 6,5 billion remain.
2. 25 years of cooling. Let's just go all-out, and say 99% of humanity dies, that leaves 65 nillion survivors, scattered around the world, creating new nations, Fallout-style (sans the ghouls and death claws). This would be a population roughly similar to 1000 BC, and you can only imagine the ammount of wars we have to fight then, all over again, thousands!
3. 1000 years of cooling, so what, we have done that before, we could be reduced to a global population of eskimos

By then we have even popped the nuke-cherry, and will probably hesitate less to use them sporadically now and then

Either way, we won't really know till it happens, but it takes a lot to end wars, or wipe out humanity

Final edit: I like that we are quite persistent, in terms of disastrous change, we will simply dress for the weather, and continue, reduced and all, but with better stories to tell. People are often tempted to give humanity a very short shelf-life, imagining some big war that will end us all, or we will kill our earth, or whatever, but as long as some persons persist left in an utterly inhospitable world, we still exist as a species, and I think - by now - we can put ourselves anywhere, for hundreds of thousands of years (we allready went 200K roughly unchanged), we could theoretically go on for millions of years, as we are now, in snow and sand and shit.
 
Last edited:
zegh8578 said:
I'm curious how much damage a real nuclear war would cause.

First of all, humanity has detonated thousands of nuclear warheads, and none of us notice much, 2 people have died from nuclear explosions, outside of warfare.

Realistically, an all-out emptying of the magazines won't happen, so an "all out" nuclear exchange, in reality, would only involve a portion of the total arsenal. We can arbitrarily decide on one third of the total arsenal, meaning USA and Russia would launch 3-6 thousand each - which depending on how condensed they want to hit, would mostly just cover each others (dropping every major town and city, larger cities with several hits), if a bit more focused on major cities, a global bombardment could ensue. We would still only see major cities targeted though, and population losses comparable to a summary of the majority of large urban populations, maybe a half a billion dead once the bomb-rain is over (including a global bombardment).

Unrealistically, the entire armament is emptied, and every warhead flies, resulting in the above, times three, a denser coverate of important towns, I've seen maps where my humble town of Trondheim is targeted twice, as a theoretical target. Two nukes for a population centre with more than 100 000 people in them. I've seen mentions of Soviet targets in Denmark including Roskilde, a purely cultural little hub of no harm - precisely because of its cultural significance.

When it's all said and done, nukes are not weapons to "destroy all life", but weapons to "destroy a whole city", when such be needed.
It's not even about destroying all of Denmark, or half of Denmark, or a tenth or hundredth of Denmark. A hydrogen bomb exploding in Roskilde would only be a faint glimmer seen from space, the rest would look the same. Denmark would be in chaos, since Roskilde has been obliterated, and maybe 20 000 are dead.

"20 000? That's a bit anticlimactic... " yeah, man, it's Denmark
Click to expand...

2053 from 1945 till 1998 it seems.

Though many of those tests have been relatively small and some have been underground tests. But still an impressive number. It is still a hot debate how high the pollution is from all those tests. There are some serious concerns though, particulary in the areas that have been relatively close to the test fields. Hence why many tests have been done underground at some point. But the tests have been usually done in unpopulated areas, which gives some protection. But, imagine if Pakistan and India would use their weapons they most probably would start to use them on areas with high military concentration or even against civilian targets. No one can really say how severe the effects would be in the long run. You should not forget it isn't just about the explosions, many generations will have to deal with it. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And a war will most probably not see just one nuclear explosion but probably a lot more. 20? 100? 1000? Depends on the conflict I guess. Many nations have the technology and know-how to create such weapons like Germany for example, it would take maybe a few weeks, maybe even just a few days if the government saw the need for it, right now Germany and many other nations like Japan live under the nuclear umbrella of the United States. But already Japan feels like they need their own bomb in the future, considering that China and most probably North Korea have it already. A world war 3 would not start in some kind of vacuum, there would be tensions and political changes, so we might see a huge increase in nuclear weapons not to mention that many of the systems today are more advanced compared to the 60s and 70s. They tend to use more smaller weapons on the same area instead of one big explosion, the destractuion is bigger because of a somewhat more even spread.

In any case, what ever if humanity dies or not, a world war 3 would be extremly devastating, considering all the different kind of weapons we have today. We are not just talking about nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons and electromagnetic systems to destroy technology or what ever else they came up with ...

If we follow the idea of WW1 to WW2 where the casualties literaly exploded we might reach the billion mark with WW3.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zegh8578 said:
I'm curious how much damage a real nuclear war would cause.

First of all, humanity has detonated thousands of nuclear warheads, and none of us notice much, 2 people have died from nuclear explosions, outside of warfare.

Realistically, an all-out emptying of the magazines won't happen, so an "all out" nuclear exchange, in reality, would only involve a portion of the total arsenal. We can arbitrarily decide on one third of the total arsenal, meaning USA and Russia would launch 3-6 thousand each - which depending on how condensed they want to hit, would mostly just cover each others (dropping every major town and city, larger cities with several hits), if a bit more focused on major cities, a global bombardment could ensue. We would still only see major cities targeted though, and population losses comparable to a summary of the majority of large urban populations, maybe a half a billion dead once the bomb-rain is over (including a global bombardment).

Unrealistically, the entire armament is emptied, and every warhead flies, resulting in the above, times three, a denser coverate of important towns, I've seen maps where my humble town of Trondheim is targeted twice, as a theoretical target. Two nukes for a population centre with more than 100 000 people in them. I've seen mentions of Soviet targets in Denmark including Roskilde, a purely cultural little hub of no harm - precisely because of its cultural significance.

When it's all said and done, nukes are not weapons to "destroy all life", but weapons to "destroy a whole city", when such be needed.
It's not even about destroying all of Denmark, or half of Denmark, or a tenth or hundredth of Denmark. A hydrogen bomb exploding in Roskilde would only be a faint glimmer seen from space, the rest would look the same. Denmark would be in chaos, since Roskilde has been obliterated, and maybe 20 000 are dead.

"20 000? That's a bit anticlimactic... " yeah, man, it's Denmark
Click to expand...

2053 from 1945 till 1998 it seems.

Though many of those tests have been relatively small and some have been underground tests. But still an impressive number. It is still a hot debate how high the pollution is from all those tests. There are some serious concerns though, particulary in the areas that have been relatively close to the test fields. Hence why many tests have been done underground at some point. But the tests have been usually done in unpopulated areas, which gives some protection. But, imagine if Pakistan and India would use their weapons they most probably would start to use them on areas with high military concentration or even against civilian targets. No one can really say how severe the effects would be in the long run. You should not forget it isn't just about the explosions, many generations will have to deal with it. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And a war will most probably not see just one nuclear explosion but probably a lot more. 20? 100? 1000? Depends on the conflict I guess. Many nations have the technology and know-how to create such weapons like Germany for example, it would take maybe a few weeks, maybe even just a few days if the government saw the need for it, right now Germany and many other nations like Japan live under the nuclear umbrella of the United States. But already Japan feels like they need their own bomb in the future, considering that China and most probably North Korea have it already. A world war 3 would not start in some kind of vacuum, there would be tensions and political changes, so we might see a huge increase in nuclear weapons not to mention that many of the systems today are more advanced compared to the 60s and 70s. They tend to use more smaller weapons on the same area instead of one big explosion, the destractuion is bigger because of a somewhat more even spread.

In any case, what ever if humanity dies or not, a world war 3 would be extremly devastating, considering all the different kind of weapons we have today. We are not just talking about nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons and electromagnetic systems to destroy technology or what ever else they came up with ...

If we follow the idea of WW1 to WW2 where the casualties literaly exploded we might reach the billion mark with WW3.



zegh8578 said:
Either way, we won't really know till it happens, but it takes a lot to end wars, or wipe out humanity

Final edit: I like that we are quite persistent, in terms of disastrous change, we will simply dress for the weather, and continue, reduced and all, but with better stories to tell. People are often tempted to give humanity a very short shelf-life, imagining some big war that will end us all, or we will kill our earth, or whatever, but as long as some persons persist left in an utterly inhospitable world, we still exist as a species, and I think - by now - we can put ourselves anywhere, for hundreds of thousands of years (we allready went 200K roughly unchanged), we could theoretically go on for millions of years, as we are now, in snow and sand and shit.
Click to expand...

That is kind of the arrogance of our species though, to believe that we're some kind of special snowflake here. Thing is there are many factors to consider here, to many eventually. A global nuclear war with no clue 30 000 or even 60 000 nuclear warheads - think about the peak in the cold war here! Maybe it could mean a slow death to humanity. The issue isn't just that all cities are lost. It is also about pollution and the eco system. Humans can't just survive from nothing. If there is no way to get enough nutrients than you have a situation where everyone will be constantly starving and spending most of their energy in search for food. See some areas in Africa and Asia where the popluation is close to death from starvation. They have just barely enough food to survive.

While we might not perish in just one day, it might still be the end to the humanity as we know it and the evolution we saw for the last 10 000 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nuclear tests don't happen in cities and do not create the firestorms and resulting debris into the atmosphere, hence past nuclear tests are no reliable comparison. And while humanity would survive, all nations who participated in the exchange would cease to exist. There is NO LEARNING PERIOD with nuclear bombs, one single mistake destroys nations. So even if you argue that there will be more wars after a third world war, these will be fought with clubs and stones.
 
Last edited:
Gonzalez said:
Nuclear tests don't happen in cities and do not create the firestorms and resulting debris into the atmosphere, hence past nuclear tests are no reliable comparison. And while humanity would survive, all nations who participated in the exchange would cease to exist. There is NO LEARNING PERIOD with nuclear bombs, one single mistake destroys nations. So even if you argue that there will be more wars after a third world war, these will be fought with clubs and stones.
Click to expand...

As well as Crni vuk: I'm not saying an all-out exchange wouldn't be devastating. I just responded to the assumption that there would be *no* wars after a nuclear exchange. That is simply far from reality, there will be many, many, many wars. There will be wars as long as there is people - and you said it yourself - nations will cease to exist, we must now fight to create new nations, there will be a shower of war.

Yes, a nuclear exchange would be an event comparable to the Toba-disaster of 70K BC - which reduced humanity to between 1000 and 10 000 survivors. These survivors are our ancestors, and we have fought how many wars since then?

That's all I'm sayin. We're tough, and we fight wars, it's gonna take more than a bit of nuclear annihilation to annihilate us.
I'm not being arrogant Crni, the research Gonzales forwarded me to says that temperatures will change, causing famine. I say we - as a species - can survive famines. Is that arrogant? Are you saying that humanity goes extinct, when famines occur? If so, why are we still here?
Why do we live in both Sahara, and Greenland, if temperature variation is such a killer.
I'm not saying "we can survive aaanything!" I'm saying: We can survive a nuclear exchange, of todays arsenals. Society changes, sure, I'm not talking about that. We will survive it, as a species. I see nothing arrogant about acknowledging that it's gonna take more than a few thousand nuclear detonations to kill all living humans everywhere.
 
Last edited:
Temperature change is such a killer not because humans could not stand it, but because the food for most humans as it is now would not grow. And while the rest of the world can continue to to kill each other, the participant nations would never do it again. So you, as a nation, would condemn yourself willingly to such fate? Not to mention there is no going back, youre gone. So I stand for what I said earlier, there is no learning period with nuclear weapons.

So unless you are crazier than Kim jong-un and want to bring the temple down on your head.

Not to mention bringing humanity back to stone age if it survived, I dont think I'd like to live there. I'd preffer to be one of the lucky ones who died first.
 
Last edited:
It is a bit annoying that everyone always thinks World War 3 boils down to nuclear weapons. MAD prevents nukes from being used, while other more efficient weapons are being developed, weapons that I might add are far beyond the capabilities of belligerent nations like North Korea. Everyone always blusters about nuking this and that, but not that many nations are suicidal.

War as we know it is changing faster and faster every day. One key to surviving a nuclear war is having an effective missile defense shield. Striking before the other nations ever launches the nukes helps as well. Space-based weapons are the wave of the future, along with the new laser based platforms we are outfitting the Navy with. While these developing nations are testing nukes we are putting top secret projects into space. It might be said that China is doing the same.

At one time controlling the worlds oceans was top priority. For the next century and beyond, controlling space is key. I also don't think World War 3 is going to knock us back to the stone age. People imagine nukes just flying all over the place, wiping out everyone on the planet, which I admit is interesting to say the least, with many of us fascinated with post apocalyptic culture, but I don't see it happening. The US and Russia would take the most of the blasts, no doubt about that, but the rest of the world?

Not all the cards are on the table when referring to something as devastating as a World War. The US developed the nuke to win WW2...what do we have in store for WW3? More nukes? I can't wait until one of our nations is destroyed by a new super-weapon so we can lose our fascination with nukes.

:wiggle:

Edit: 6000th post ftw.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gonzalez said:
Temperature change is such a killer not because humans could not stand it, but because the food for most humans as it is now would not grow. And while the rest of the world can continue to to kill each other, the participant nations would never do it again. So you, as a nation, would condemn yourself willingly to such fate? Not to mention there is no going back, youre gone. So I stand for what I said earlier, there is no learning period with nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

I didn't argue against that, I argued against nuclear war ending all wars... I realize that this has now become very semantic, but I truly am not sitting here, insisting that nuclear war would not hurt us - or that humanity can survive everything thrown at it.

I'm saying, very specifically, that a nuclear exchange of todays arsenals, would not end all wars, in order to do that, it has to end humanity, entirely, because as long as humans exist, war exist.

I'm not saying it would be easy, or fun, or preferable, whatsoever. It would be very very bad, and me, personally, I would probably just die. But that doesn't mean humanity dies with me.
 
The hidrogen bomb is far more destructive than the WWII one, and precision is preferred to firepower, so the advancements are seen in the carriers, the ICBM. A single Topol M can certainly destroy several cities actoss several states. Taht good enough? Also, both Russia and China have already publicly stated that any attempt to invade their sovereign territory would be a nuclear response. Clear. As. Day. And that if they see that the nuclear balance turns against them far enough they will launch nuclear attacks preemptively before that happens. Tjey stated this. Publicly. And they were clear about those things. Recently Russia almost launches a nuclear weapon against NATO ships in the black sea, dod you know that? People like to delude themselves that the Sword of Damocles of nuclear war is gone to feel the ilusion of safety, but it's far from gone my friend.

All it takes is NATO crossing the russian border, like the stryker ifv's that paraded just 300 kilometers away from the russian border today and the russians promised nuclear death.
 
Last edited:
Gonzalez said:
The hidrogen bomb is far more destructive than the WWII one, and precision is preferred to firepower, so the advancements are seen in the carriers, the ICBM. A single Topol M can certainly destroy several cities actoss several states. Taht good enough? Also, both Russia and China have already publicly stated that any attempt to invade their sovereign territory would be a nuclear response. Clear. As. Day. And that if they see that the nuclear balance turns against them far enough they will launch nuclear attacks preemptively before that happens. Tjey stated this. Publicly. And they were clear about those things. Recently Russia almost launches a nuclear weapon against NATO ships in the black sea, dod you know that? People like to delude themselves that the Sword of Damocles of nuclear war is gone to feel the ilusion of safety, but it's far from gone my friend.

All it takes is NATO crossing the russian border, like the stryker ifv's that paraded just 300 kilometers away from the russian border today and the russians promised nuclear death.
Click to expand...

Again, not arguing against any of that. Just saying - nuclear war will be just another chapter in humanity - not the end of humanity.
I really am not arguing against the destructive power of nuclear bombs, I'm not insane. I'm saying - humanity will survive nuclear war - and we will most certainly fight more afterwards.

Speaking of Russia bombing Denmark - Russia just finished reminding Denmark, that they will be targeted with nuclear bombs, if they continue supporting the "missile shield", so I know that. Juuust saying, for the final time - it won't end humanity: It won't end all wars.
 
Gonzalez said:
The hidrogen bomb is far more destructive than the WWII one, and precision is preferred to firepower, so the advancements are seen in the carriers, the ICBM. A single Topol M can certainly destroy several cities actoss several states. Taht good enough? Also, both Russia and China have already publicly stated that any attempt to invade their sovereign territory would be a nuclear response. Clear. As. Day. And that if they see that the nuclear balance turns against them far enough they will launch nuclear attacks preemptively before that happens. Tjey stated this. Publicly. And they were clear about those things. Recently Russia almost launches a nuclear weapon against NATO ships in the black sea, dod you know that? People like to delude themselves that the Sword of Damocles of nuclear war is gone to feel the ilusion of safety, but it's far from gone my friend.

All it takes is NATO crossing the russian border, like the stryker ifv's that paraded just 300 kilometers away from the russian border today and the russians promised nuclear death.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and North Korea will do this, Iran will do that, and Russia will keep pushing the bluff as long as they can until someone makes them back down. A week doesn't go by without someone threatening to nuke the other. What would launching a nuke at NATO ships really accomplish anyway? Talk about overkill. Quit buying into the fear tactics man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top