What would happen when the next nuclear weapon is used in hostility?

Inevitably, when the next nuclear weapon is used in hostility would it necessarily mean the start of all out WW III or would the hate linger with the usual diplomacy tactcs and ploys?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Depends

If America used one, there would not be as much political fallout as there would if say, China used one. This is in part cause because the UN and NATO are the US's bitches, and nobody would dare shoot a nuke over at America. We have the firepower to flatten China 20 times over, and although the Chinese government is stupid, it's not suicidal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Depends

I believe the top three nuke nations all have the nukes and the means to flatten each other over 20 times. But US alone can flatten the Earth 20 times. None can beat that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

war is good for the economy. I believe that after WWII the U.S. was one of the few nations which still had the ability to manufacture goods on a massive scale. The manufacturing capacity of most others were destroyed or badly damaged. We were a world supplier. if we could get Europe and Asia to bomb eachother, we might once again hold the world by its short hairs.

 

I do not think that playing off nations against each other with nuclear weapons would be a ploy that would favor us. As the world is one environment. Sooner or later we would have to deal with the fallout of their war. Not long ago it was noted that there was a kerosene trace in the high reaches of the atmosphere over California. It was attributed to Russia’s launching of a rocket into space. Not only would our population suffer from such but also most likely some of those vital materials, mineral, and elements that are not domestic might prove hard to come by. After all I would not like to own a chair with a half-life.

 

Tetra
"If America used one, there would not be as much political fallout as there would if say, China used one. This is in part cause because the UN and NATO are the US's bitches, and nobody would dare shoot a nuke over at America. We have the firepower to flatten China 20 times over, and although the Chinese government is stupid, it's not suicidal."

Unfortunately China could flatten America 20 times over as well. Their government is also not stupid. As a matter of fact, their government is much like ours, arrogant. Also NATO and the UN would soon turn their backs on us if we were the aggressor. With all of our glory and power we don't hold a candle to the whole world. Fortunately it won't be a major power that uses the next bomb. To much danger. It could lead to a world wide nuclear fallout. It will be a small, fanatic, totalitarian country. The country itself will most likely be brutally conquered. The most likely target will be Israel, the tensions being as high as ever there and the fanatic countries are highly concentrated there as well.

 

interesting.....

I agree with alot of what you're saying for sure.

 

I also think it will be a small fanatic country who will use a nuclear bomb, to eliminate another small country.

That's the reason why I don't think it's gonna be a worldwar, the NATO and the UN will immediately eliminate the country who did it, and not with nuclear bombs.

It's just like someone who starts shooting in the middle of a crowd of policemen.
One police man will be shot, and the other policemen will knock the shooter down immediately.

 

Who would step in?

I don't know KneD. Neither the UN or NATO got involved in Rwanda. True, it was machettes rather than atomic weapons, but almost a million people were killed.

And as far as 'immediate' response; forget it as far as the UN. NATO is far more likely to respond quickly, but even there, not immediately. Look at what happened in the Balkans.

 

yeah, I think your right.

But when a country starts throwing nuclear bombs, there will be enough forces who will immediatly eliminate that country.

 

Total Chaos.

There would be countries phonong up counrties asking for pacts and nuclear bombs dropped everwhere. It would be all out HELL.

It is hard to say what exactly would happen though. Its hard to try and have diplomatic talks with someone who two days ago gave an order to nuke New York city.

If I was pres. I would not respond with a nuke at first to try and stray the enemy away from that tactic. I would launch a full onslaught against there country with no casre for calateral damge or civilian life. If they respond with more nukes, you would have to do the same. But this will all inevitably lead to one big waste land.

Its hard to say what america would do sense everything has to be politicly correct. There many people who protest the use of the Atom bombs ion Japan. They would rather have 2 million of their own american boys killed than 800,000 japanese. another prime example of what are world is coming to.

 

By the way. Why is the poll closed? Is it Politicly Incorrect?

 

Polls only last so long, depending upon what the author has choosen. When the time is up the poll closes.

 

Another thought

What is nuclear war these days? A H-bomb may be more destructive but a lot of neutron bombs can do the same thing without any drawbacks. No waste and no end of the world, just a LOT fewer people and a lot of office buildings for each. It makes the prospect for a nuclear war much more likely.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My opinion on thermonuclear weapons

If a nuclear weapon was used in hostility it really depends on who used it and what the situation was. For instance, superpower vs. superpower, (U.S. vs. Russia) the results would be catostrophic. Assuming that the full nuclear arsenal of both countries was deployed the Earth would undergo a mass extincition. There wouldn't be anything left to negiotiate or to use diplomacy for. This would be the worst parts of the Book of Revelation.
If a nuke was used between a superpower and a second world coutry (U.S. vs. China) the results wouldn't be a total global extinction. If either country fired first over a billion would die. China currently has seven nuclear bombs which are fitted ontop of ICBMs, cabable of striking the west coast, and soon the midwest. China would be crushed if nuked by America, we have over 10,000 nuclear weapons at the ready. China would probably kill 80 million people and destroy most of the U.S. cities.
A nuclear war inside the technological world, mostly the Western coutries would ultimitly result in a world econmic shutdown. Now nearly all major countries, even enemies depend on eachother for trade. If we blew up China, we'd actually be shooting ourselfs in the foot. We trade billions with them. A nuclear war would hurt each side if only one was hit.

 

My opinion on thermonuclear weapons

If a nuclear weapon was used in hostility it really depends on who used it and what the situation was. For instance, superpower vs. superpower, (U.S. vs. Russia) the results would be catostrophic. Assuming that the full nuclear arsenal of both countries was deployed the Earth would undergo a mass extincition. There wouldn't be anything left to negiotiate or to use diplomacy for. This would be the worst parts of the Book of Revelation.
If a nuke was used between a superpower and a second world coutry (U.S. vs. China) the results wouldn't be a total global extinction. If either country fired first over a billion would die. China currently has seven nuclear bombs which are fitted ontop of ICBMs, cabable of striking the west coast, and soon the midwest. China would be crushed if nuked by America, we have over 10,000 nuclear weapons at the ready. China would probably kill 80 million people and destroy most of the U.S. cities.
A nuclear war inside the technological world, mostly the Western coutries would ultimitly result in a world econmic shutdown. Now nearly all major countries, even enemies depend on eachother for trade. If we blew up China, we'd actually be shooting ourselfs in the foot. We trade billions with them. A nuclear war would hurt each side if only one was hit.
The next display of nuclear weapons will most likely be between Iraq and Isreal. I would assume that if there was a Second Persian Gulf War, and Iraq was nearly defeated a SCUD with a nuclear war head would be lobbed into Isreal. They would respond with a full nuclear onslaught.
If not Isreal and Iraq then it could be, India and Pakistan or even India and China. India and China have populations over one billion, nuclear weapons and the need for lots of natural resouces. I.E. oil. The Indian navy could intercept oil tankers going through the Indian Ocean going to China, yada, yada, yada, they blow eachother away.
A nuke war of some scale will happen in 20 years.

 

hey all
some say it has already happened
the oaklahoma fbi building... i wonder who might want to 'pak' a nuke in there trouser pocket?
think of this!
would the usa admit to a terrorist strike against it by another 3rd world country? not likely... what would the natives demand?
all out war? prob.
the eqautions are far too complicated to assume the media storys as trueth when u start looking with-out stars and stripes in your eyes or union jacks for that matter.

groove on all

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Didn't make much scense...

To decipher what your reply said, and convert it into english I would have to have a degree in cryptography. I think you were hinting at a conspiracy theory being involved w/the Oklahoma City Bombing. McVeigh acted alone, there was no government involvment. Don't bother wasting time trying to convince me there was, I wouldn't believe it if Clinton himself told me.

Second, yes the US would admit to a terrorist strike from another country. Example, in 1988 the Marine barracks in Lebanon were blown up by a terrorist backed by Libya. The US used air strikes against Libya for their actions. Guess why the World Trade Center was blown up a year after the Gulf War, Sadamm wanted revenge. Though we didn't figure out the links for quite a while. He probably had his hands in the embassy bombing too. The US or any other country would admit to a terrorist attack by another country because it gives the government a scapegoat, a fall-guy to sacrifice to make the situation better. If you can get revenge, you take it, especially if you want to get re-elected.

The hilarious thing about conspiracy theories and theorists are that they see a huge event, (JFK's death, or the Murrah building) and assume that a lone man couldn't create that much destruction. It isn't really the amount of destruction, you see a loner and can't believe a simpleton did that much devastation. The crook doesn't fit the crime. Oswald probably killed Kennedy but people though JFK was too great a man to be killed by a loser. The Soviets or the mob seemed to fit the story better. This is what happens when people read too many spy books and see to many movies.

P.S. It was the Murrah Federal Building, not the FBI branch of Oklahoma City.

 

Result of nuclear war

Any nuclear exchange would prompt reactions from every nuke-equipped nation. Russia and China would hit America. Pakistan and India would hit each other. Europe would help America and, ahem, be flattened. Some Muslim nation would drop a bomb on Israel and Israel would PWN the entire Middle East. Oh, and there would be nothing left of China and Russia after America finishes with them.
The actual explosion of a nuke only has about a 50km radius, but the alpha particle radiation, pressure waves and light would mean unbelievable casualities and area damage for maybe another twenty kms all around. Then you've got the winds and the fires; in the Allied bombing of Dresden in 1943, the entire city was nigh-obliviated by the fires from roughly a kiloton of bombs. Nukes today can be over a hundred megatons.
Then you have the fallout clouds, the ash rising up and blocking out sunlight, the holes you'd punch in the ozone layer - any average-sized nation would be pulped beyond recognition by even one hit. And a nuclear war is a doomsday war - you'd shoot everything you had. At the height of the cold war, Am and Rus each had about 20 000 nukes each - and I really, really can't see the USA reducing their weapons capacity.
So in answer to you question, the northern hemisphere would collapse. Everything would be obliterated over the course of a week or two, and then you'd have chaos when Africans and South Americans overrun their devastated, affluent neighbours (think Scarecrow, if you've read that novel). If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that a few deep black American mountain bases, maybe a few extreme northern Europe cities, Greenland, the Antarctic bases, civilian ships on out-of-the-way areas of ocean, the space shuttles and the middle of Australia would survive, and provide a way to keep the human race around. But definitely - definitely - all society would fall over. We might become farmers again, who knows. But it wouldn't be good.
Basically, I think three things could happen with nukes and the end of civilisation - in the long term. One, the world becomes united under one government. Maybe not a perfect solution, but no more apocalyptic threat. Two, we get off Earth to other planets or asteroids before the war comes, and we just exhaust our nuclear reserves before we can blitz all the colonies. And finally number three - war happens. We start from 300 AD all over again. Repeat as needed.

 

Wow.. revived an old thread..

Right now with the world climate, It is probable that the USA will be the one to destroy the world, but probably won't start the conflict.