Nuclear War

Cool Breeze
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by Cool Breeze »

Interesting post.

I think the technocrat plan is the larger reason why a few of us are skeptical (we aren't saying nuclear weapons won't be used by someone) that it'll be as bad as the real armageddon types here. The generational crisis may be just as likely to be a complete dystopia along the lines of slouching towards transhumanism. It's sadly a topic that I think John doesn't grasp in that he isn't avidly against it - he thinks it is coming and may be progress. I'm not sure though, I will let him speak for himself. For me, dying is a better fate. I would rather retain my humanity, dignity and soul rather than sell out to the sick elite and their plans. I know what God is doing in the world and He is eternal. The Gates and Schwabs of the world aren't, and it is sad indeed - they purposely ignore these realities.

FullMoon
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:55 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by FullMoon »

Well said Cool. It's a frightening future indeed regardless of the outcome. Dying is a real possibility and shouldn't be feared. What I fear is for the lives of my children, their health and happiness. I wouldn't mind living an isolated, self reliant life. Society provides comfort but it seems it needs a restart, and the accompanying travails. I probably wouldn't fret as much except the thought of my children suffering gives me purpose to prepare.

John
Posts: 9936
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Nuclear War

Post by John »

** 10-Jan-2021 World View: Nuclear weapons

For those who are wondering what I think, I endorse the views of Tim,
who seems to be the only realistic person in this discussion. No army
will surrender if it has nuclear weapons available. Before the war
ends, every nuclear weapon will have been used somewhere, and this
will mostly take place toward the end of the war, as losing armies
become increasingly desperate.

tim
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Nuclear War

Post by tim »

John I hope you are correct that they will be used towards the end of the war as this will give people more time to prepare. My nightmare is a nuclear Pearl Harbor style attack with the idea being the United States can be quickly knocked out of the war as was the thinking 80 years ago....

Its interesting to read the Cold War war gaming. Some felt that the U.S. mass evacuating the cities would trigger a nuclear strike as the enemy would assume the U.S. was getting ready to attack and was evacuating its cities to minimize the damage from the enemies response attack. In a way it was thought the more the U.S. prepared for nuclear war the higher the chance of the enemy believing they were going to be attacked.

The incompetence you see in the different areas of government I am sure is present in whatever levels of government exist for this sort of conflict.
"Nothing happens to anybody, that he is not fitted by Nature to bear" - Marcus Aurelius

Trevor
Posts: 1136
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:43 am

Re: Nuclear War

Post by Trevor »

Operating on the assumption the true number of Chinese warheads is 3,000, it still wouldn't be enough to knock the United States out of the war. For one thing, some would be intercepted, others destroyed, a few missiles failing to launch properly. Even then, during the Cold War, we had more than 12,000 targets in the Soviet Union.

Currently, we have around 1,800 active nuclear weapons, with another 4,000 in storage. Something to consider is redoubled efforts to construct new ones, although we may not do so until tactical nukes start being used on the battlefield. Plenty of leaders will want to pretend nuclear war isn't possible.

And contrary to popular belief, nuclear war is survivable. The truly lethal fallout is gone within a few weeks and we already ejected around 500 megatons of it with nuclear testing in the Cold War. It might lead to long-term deaths, but pose no risk to human survival. If we focused more on civil defense, we'd be able to save tens of millions, but I find that to be unlikely. There would be long term fallout, and estimates of long term deaths have varied by a factor of a hundred, often for political reasons. Even so, that doesn't mean human extinction.

Which isn't to say it wouldn't lead to enormous loss of life, especially in China and India, who are much poorer than we are. I think the biggest danger would be that so much of the infrastructure is destroyed that food is impossible to transport to those who need it. Yes, some of it's likely to be radioactive, but your choice will be an increased risk of cancer in 20 years or starving now. Europe and the United States wouldn't be as badly affected, but China, India, Southeast Asia, and Africa would suffer greatly.

Modern cities are a lot stronger than 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki and unlikely to erupt into a firestorm like the ones we saw in WWII. Steel and concrete are far stronger than wood and paper. In the 1930s, they had the same dread of conventional bombs we have of nuclear ones, believing hundreds of thousands would die in a matter of hours.

What the post-war landscape looks like afterward is something we can do little more than guess about.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by Cool Breeze »

I am in the camp of people who think like Trevor. The reason why I believe that approach of tim and John is incorrect, although they are right about many things, is in its degree. A frailty of human thinking throughout the ages is that sensationalism always reigns in any generations current mind. That applies to every time period, including now - it's the topic that changes. Add age and the cassandra complex and John's predisposition is an overreaction, which are just symptoms of his being treated poorly by idiots late in his career, which I am sympathetic to.

The reason why posts and positions like mine are often misunderstood is because of a defensive posture towards criticism. I have said before, and want to reiterate, that I also have a high probability that war will happen this decade (but notice I predict it much later) and I also say there is a possibility that it won't happen - the sensationalists do not. I predict also a coming economic correction, market crisis, etc whatever.

I just don't go over the top to try to prove my points, and thus am less emotional about it all. The common misconception is that of calling something overrated, which others often interpret as you suggesting something is "bad." No, it means that it's rated higher than it should be, even though it could be great. People commonly react in such a way so my expertise in more than anything is analyzing language, critical thinking, and honest reactions ... or overreactions.

I'm preparing with everyone here, regardless, just wanted to stress that either way.

John
Posts: 9936
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Nuclear War

Post by John »

I see what you mean about misunderstanding posts. I too agree with
Trevor, and he doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by Cool Breeze »

John wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:01 pm
I see what you mean about misunderstanding posts. I too agree with
Trevor, and he doesn't contradict anything I've said.
Sounds good. I like this community and as long as trolls can't abound (like you know who) we are all the better. Best,

CB

Navigator
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by Navigator »

A large part of the issue here is that while we do have a very good rough idea of what is coming, we do not know exactly what will happen. We cannot tell exactly who will do what and when.

Hitler did not use nerve gas, in fact nobody really used gas in WW2, even though it had been widely used in WW1. As I explained in the book, even Hitler was dissuaded from using gas due to the threat of it being used on him/Germany.

On another line, Speer (and others) prevented Hitler from turning Germany into a wasteland at the end of the war. They realized that killing everyone was not a good way to come out of the war with anything.

What John described earlier is my biggest fear (as they lose, the Chinese decide to launch everything). IMHO, it may or may not happen. In the end, I expect it will be the Chinese military (or people within the military) that rise up to overthrow the CCP leadership, probably due to the widespread carnage and starvation that China will endure during the war. This is similar to how WW1 ended for Germany.

FullMoon
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:55 pm

Re: Nuclear War

Post by FullMoon »

Isn't foreign occupation THE greatest fear of Chinese? They have lots of experience with it. Any offensive strikes should be considered tactical with the remainder held for anything trying to come inland?
Thus US domestic strategic assets only for the most part. Then Japan of course. If they're going to obliterate somewhere, that would be a good bet.
Any possibility of new technology displacing nukes or rendering them inoperable?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests