what are the chances of nuclear holocaust?

[S.O.I]

as things are today, things seem a little unstable. george bush actually called the war on terror, world war 3 in a 2006 interview. but what are the real chances of world war 3 and all out nuclear warfare?

[ZeroNowhere]

17.24%, rounded to four significant figures.

That is, it's impossible to know.

[ComradeOm]

See the Doomsday Clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock) for the best estimate of how close we are to nuclear annihilation. The clock currently stands at five minutes to midnight which is roughly where it was during the late '80s

What is not in doubt is that this possibility remains very real. Both superpowers still retain enough nuclear material to destroy the world many, many times over

[Psy]

Full scale nuclear war is actually not that likely as the ruling classes are well aware of mutual assured destruction, the real threat is escalation of limited nuclear wars. The major powers have tactical nuclear weapons that are designed to take out entire divisions and fleets on a battlefield and were built to avoid mutual assured destruction. Tactical nuclear weapons still produce a lot of radiation meaning if there was a world war were they were tactical nukes were heavily used a lot of the world would become radiated.

[ComradeOm]

Full scale nuclear war is actually not that likely as the ruling classes are well aware of mutual assured destructionBy the same logic the Great Powers of the 20th C should have been able to avoid the ruinous First World War. Imperialist competition forces capitalist nations into conflict

[STJ]

It is impossible to know.

[Sean]

Unless a crackhead gets codes for nukes we're safe. Although not the most popular position on earth, while there exists capitalism and imperialism, lots of nukes is a good thing. America and now Israel both adopt the madman strategy, that is, give the appearance that they are trigger happy. However, I sincerely doubt either country's willingness to call the bluff of any other zero sum players. Scares about religious nutjobs getting their hands on nukes are overplayed in my opinion to remind all nationalities how kickass nukes actually are. Theres always the fear that some bond villain will get their hands on nuclear weapons, ok, there is the possibility that you can buy some nukes on the black market, but its not something you could put down your trousers and sneak into X country. Nukes are complicated enough to provide a logistical child lock of sorts that prevent random people from getting one from ebay and starting ww3. As it stands unless you run a country you can't launch nukes because you lack the insane amount of expertise and infrastructure to do so, the world is not a James Bond movie. 'Expropriation' aside, the actual acquisition of nukes is a very interesting subject and I still to this day don't know if south africa or spain have them or not. They are, however national weapons, and as such have no place in any kind of communist or anarchist world. But in the world around us now, as it stands, I'd argue that arming nations to the teeth has prevented a lot of bloodshed merely from the threat of it, I just wish that until we can dissolve nations everybody had them.

[Vahanian]

By the same logic the Great Powers of the 20th C should have been able to avoid the ruinous First World War. Imperialist competition forces capitalist nations into conflict


you have a point but a nuclear conflict would destroy most if not all chance of them making any money and surviving after that war

[mikelepore]

A probability with a Poisson distribution needs a time duration to be meaningful. For example, the probability that one car will drive past the house sometime within the next ten seconds, versus the probability that one car will drive past the house sometime within the next ten hours.

[ComradeOm]

But in the world around us now, as it stands, I'd argue that arming nations to the teeth has prevented a lot of bloodshed merely from the threat of itThat's an old theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7oZ2t-_doM)


you have a point but a nuclear conflict would destroy most if not all chance of them making any money and surviving after that warTrue... if people always acted rationally. Imperialist competition between two capitalist blocs will almost inevitably lead to conflict. It may not even be purposeful - for every von Berchtold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Graf_Berchtold), who knowingly threw his country into a war that it cannot possibly win, there are the likes of Stanislav Petrov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov) who averted a war that almost started by accident. Never underestimate just how easy it is to start a war, intentionally or not

[Psy]

[/URL]
True... if people always acted rationally. Imperialist competition between two capitalist blocs will almost inevitably lead to conflict. It may not even be purposeful - for every [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Graf_Berchtold"]von Berchtold (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7oZ2t-_doM), who knowingly threw his country into a war that it cannot possibly win, there are the likes of Stanislav Petrov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov) who averted a war that almost started by accident. Never underestimate just how easy it is to start a war, intentionally or not

But that is why imperialist countries developed the theory of limited nuclear war. The idea is that if country A nuked a division of country B's military that country B not wanting a full scale nuclear exchange would nuke a division of country A rather then launch a full scale attack on countries A cities that would force country A to launch a full scale retaliation to the cities of country B thus limiting nuclear weapons to the battlefield.

[Bright Banana Beard]

It is over 9000 percent chance that we have nuclear war, if there was a chance.

[ComradeOm]

But that is why imperialist countries developed the theory of limited nuclear warA delusion. A necessary one for those powers staring into a nuclear abyss but a delusion nonetheless. There is absolutely no reason to think that the use of nuclear weapons would not escalate into a fully fledged nuclear war

Indeed, from a global point of view its almost irrelevant as to whether it does. It would take no more than 50 Hiroshima-yield weapons to wreck untold damage on the Earth's climate. For reference, a single British WE.177C or US B83 produces a yield over 10 times that of the original Fat Man while the US assembled thousands of nuclear artillery shells with kiloton yields

[Oneironaut]

I would be lying if I said that I wasn't concerned at all about it. However, I think the chances are very slim and like Sean said, I feel like the media overplays the probability of some radical group getting their hands on a nuke. I definitely don't rule it out as impossible though.

[Psy]

A delusion. A necessary one for those powers staring into a nuclear abyss but a delusion nonetheless. There is absolutely no reason to think that the use of nuclear weapons would not escalate into a fully fledged nuclear war

The logic is that mutual assured destruction would limit both parties to using nuclear weapons on battlefields. For example if the U.S.S.R did use nuclear torpedo's on the US block aid during the missile crisis the theory is that the US would have only used tactical nukes on Cuba prior to their invasion, that would have forces the U.S.S.R to launch all its tactical nukes in Cuba at the rest of the US fleets so their tactical nukes don't get destroyed before they are launched. Then the hostiles would end due to the U.S.S.R no longer having enough forces to operate in Cuba and the USA not having enough forces to take Cuba.



Indeed, from a global point of view its almost irrelevant as to whether it does. It would take no more than 50 Hiroshima-yield weapons to wreck untold damage on the Earth's climate. For reference, a single British WE.177C or US B83 produces a yield over 10 times that of the original Fat Man while the US assembled thousands of nuclear artillery shells with kiloton yields
That is the fault with the theory of limited nuclear war.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I HATE nuclear weapons. i dont care if they provide national security. now that nations have 'em there is a possibility of them being used again.

i love the idea of a nuclear free world. But since we are not, there is always a TINY possibility of it happening. i doubt leaders are dumb enough to do so though.

[GuerrillaBrad]

From what I understand, the most dangerous/probable situation would be something involving an accidental nuclear assault. Some kind of computer issue that for whatever reason would start a conflict.

It almost happened once in the eighties I believe. A Soviet radar station (or something) all of a sudden picked up an American nuclear attack in progress. The officer in command luckily had the sense to assume that it was a computer malfunction, and didn't respond.

Computers are quite a bit more secure nowadays, but there is still the possibility of something like this happening again. Especially with the advent of cyber-terrorism.

[ComradeOm]

The logic is that mutual assured destruction would limit both parties to using nuclear weapons on battlefieldsLogic that has been the source of intense controversy for decades. Here's a few reasons why escalation is not only possible but likely:

1) It is a US doctrine that was never shared by the USSR. The stated Soviet position that any 'limited' nuclear engagement would carry an unacceptably high risk of escalation and that their response would be strategic in nature. Unlike the US, the Soviets did not differentiate between a limited or 'full' nuclear exchange and were prepared to fight either. Indeed MAD was an official US doctrine and never formally accepted by Soviet authorities, who operated off their own policy platform. Which is perfectly understandable given that the Soviets were not equipped to fight this sort of limited war

AFAIK this has not changed. Current Russian policy tacitly accepts the notion of employing tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation but no more than that. Any US use of tactical weapons against Russian interests would be greeted by a strategic response directed towards the US itself

2) Tactical nukes are only non-strategic if employed in the middle of nowhere. Any exchange of low-yield weapons during a Cold War WWIII, for example, would have devastated European cities and populations. Not to mention the employment of that other tactical WMD - chemical weapons. The line between strategic and tactical becomes very blurred once you leave academia

3) Nuclear stockpiles are not infinite and nor are the means of launching them. Fears of a possible 'first strike' against these strategic assets were infectious during the Cold War and would escalate enormously during an actual conflict. Either nuclear power would be under intense pressure to resort to strategic measures before the other party. Eventually fear would get the better of someone

4) What happens when one side gains the advantage? The fundamental flaw with limited nuclear war between two powers is that sooner or later one of them will have nothing to lose. There can be no losers in a war between no superpowers and no winners either

[S.O.I]

All we are saying is give peace a chance.:cool:

but if we give peas a chance, wont the limabeans feel left out?

NARF

but i agree to what you said before that. capitalism creates conflict, and creating conflict while people have nuclear bombs is a pretty bad idea.

[Black Sheep]

I think that nuclear warfare it is too destructive on resources & markets to be profitable to cappies.
Not to mention the cost on reputation + penalty from consumers boycotts to the country's economy that used nuclear weapons.

[ComradeOm]

I think that nuclear warfare it is too destructive on resources & markets to be profitable to cappiesUnlike WWI? You should also remember that a lot of companies have become very rich from the manufacture and maintenance of nuclear weaponry


Not to mention the cost on reputation + penalty from consumers boycotts to the country's economy that used nuclear weapons.If this were a computer game perhaps. Those nations in a position to deploy nuclear weapons are, with the possible exception of Israel and Pakistan, are those most central to global capitalism. How can one possibly begin to boycott the whole range of industrial goods or financial services provided by the US? Do you really think that people would stop using Russian oil or Indian steel?