WW3 will never happen

[vincecate]

The 3 billion estimate includes deaths from war, famine, disease and starvation.

How do you estimate how soon oil refineries would be back in operation, given that the intersections on the highways have been hit by nuclear bombs? And how do you estimate how soon the highways are back in operation, given that the oil refineries are out? Would people still sell food for paper money after many nukes hit? Would truckers drive trucks of food through/near cities that had been hit by nukes and were radioactive? Or would they just steal the truckload to feed their friends and family? It seems very unclear how long it would take to stabilize things. The longer it takes to get food back in production and delivered to those that are still alive the more will die. It really seems like it would take a long time.

[Higgenbotham]

A couple things I'd mention upon reading this thread.

Warren Buffett owns an insurance company. In his policies, he has clauses that state the policies do not cover damage from nuclear attack. Here's what he said on this topic in 2002:

May 6, 2002 Posted: 7:55 AM EDT (1155 GMT)

Investor Warren Buffett, who has major insurance holdings, says the United States faces a high risk of nuclear, chemical or biological attack.

OMAHA, Nebraska (AP) -- Investment guru Warren Buffett offered a bleak prediction for the nation's national security, saying a terrorist attack on American soil is "virtually a certainty."

Envy and dislike of the United States have fueled rage against the country even as the ability to build a nuclear device has spread, Buffett said Sunday at the final day of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s annual meeting.

"We're going to have something in the way of a major nuclear event in this country," said Buffett, the firm's chief operating officer. "It will happen. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years ... it's virtually a certainty."

Washington and New York would be the top two targets because terrorists want to traumatize the country and kill as many people as possible, Buffett said.

Chemical or biological attacks are similarly high risks, Buffett said.

http://research.lifeboat.com/cnn.htm

This is what he said about this same topic in 2012. Here, he mentions governments as possible sources of attacks, not just terrorists:

CNBC's Becky Quick: Overall you are very optimistic about the future not only of this country but of the stock market. But if you have a list of worries, what's at the top of that list?

Warren Buffett: My biggest worry is nuclear, chemical, and biological attack of some sort, whether by a government or by a rogue. That will happen some day in our future and that will be a large tragedy to an unbelievable tragedy.

Quick: Right now it's not on the forefront of Americans' minds although a lot of things that are happening in the Middle East right now are creeping back up there.

Buffett: It'll happen sometime when it isn't on our minds just like it happened on 9-11. There are people that wish us ill and they wish us a lot of ill if they can pull it off. So nuclear, chemical, and biological knowledge is spent. There are plenty of people that wish us ill, so that is the biggest worry.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... ttack-cnbc

Moving onto the next topic, I don't recall bringing this up anywhere on the forum, but I think the nuclear war, if the war does occur that way, will start with either small suitcase nukes or devices that disperse and contaminate a limited but critical area. I believe either terrorists or robots will be involved in executing these attacks, but governments will be behind the attacks. They will be difficult to trace, but I think nuclear material is ultimately traceable as to its source. You guys please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I found this article that describes the current state of the art (perhaps traceable, perhaps not it appears).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/2 ... -ministers

If nuclear material can be used that is not ultimately traceable, then I think limited scale nuclear war as an initial strategy is pretty much a done deal. But anyway, my point is that if the Chinese want to retaliate against the US for whatever reason, as an example, they will use a terrorist organization. They may smuggle a suitcase nuke in through, say, the border of Mexico, then detonate it somewhere nearby that has critical infrastructure, like Houston. Or the terrorists may take it all the way to Washington or New York if they can, but I'm not sure if they would be able to get it that far without it being detected. As another example, the Russians can be behind smuggling and detonating a suitcase nuke and make it look like the Chinese did it. The possibilities are endless.

Anyway, once something like this is accomplished in one or several critical cities, it would put the targeted country in a bind as to how to respond. I believe the ultimate response would be to launch a larger scale attack against whoever is supected to be the source.

I would also mention that if bioweapons with pandemic effects can be perfected soon enough, then I strongly believe those will become the weapons of choice and they will be delivered in much the same manner, with infected terrorists spreading the pandemic via public transportation systems and so on.

[tim]

Every time a new weapon is created, people say the same things.

"This weapon is far too deadly it will never be used in war". I remember reading that people thought this about the Maxim Machine gun in the late 1800's. Today, almost every soldier has their own machine gun.

The inventor of dynamite believed his invention would prevent future wars:

Alfred Nobel, as early as their first meeting in Paris in 1876, had expressed his wish to produce material or a machine which would have such a devastating effect that war from then on, would be impossible. The point about deterrence later appeared among Nobel's ideas. In 1891, he commented on his dynamite factories by saying to the countess: "Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops." Nobel did not live long enough to experience the First World War and to see how wrong his conception was.

http://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/ ... les/tagil/

[falopex]

The problem with MAD is this: when one side believes that the other side will not have the fortitude to use their destructive capability, MAD ceases to be a deterrent to that side. It also ceases to be a deterrent when one side is willing to accept obliteration in exchange for destroying the opponent. All these behaviors and beliefs become prevalent during a Crisis Era. MAD was a great success for the US in the 1960s. It will *not* be sufficient to prevent what a Crisis Era will bring in the next decade.

Anytime I hear someone say,"It will never happen. It's too horrible. Nobody would ever contemplate that." History shows a remarkable tendancy toward proving such people wrong. Nobody thought Columbine could happen, yet it did. Nobody thought Dunblaine could happen, yet it did. Nobody thought the Aurora theater shooting could happen, yet it did. And these are really tame examples compared to such "unthinkable" examples like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Holocaust.

I've been hearing some things that, if true, suggest Israel may be prepared to attack Iran's nuclear program facilities as early as October and may feel compelled to do so for political reasons if they believe Obama is likely to be re-elected in November. Iran's leadership has already made many, many statements about Israel being an illegitimate nation that should be wiped from the map (although the Iranian people do not necessarily concur). Such an attack by Israel could be the spark that ignites massive "defensive" counter-attacks from other Arab nations who have also historically been hostile to Israel and are in their own Crisis Eras. I really see the Middle East as being a Crisis-Trigger probability "hot-spot" over the next six months or so.

Then we have China becoming increasingly belligerent and expansionist, especially with regard to the South China Sea. If they move on Japanese assets, the US may be dragged in via treaty with Japan. Both China and the US may see war as a solution for their economic problems. Since each is likely to consider the other as "unwilling to use the ultimate option", we could see MAD break down eventually. I tend to downplay the importance of North Korea in all this because they are still heavily dependent on military support from China, making them effectively "China's Pet". If they do anything that China doesn't approve of, China can roll in and occupy North Korea with little effort. They might even cite "humanitarian intervention" as the cause to make themselves look "kind" before the UN. If China *does* approve of something NK is doing, they can just let it happen and avoid getting blamed.

I've been watching international events since the mid-80s and I have *never* seen the world as ripe for WW3 as it is right now.

[Trevor]

"This weapon is far too deadly it will never be used in war". I remember reading that people thought this about the Maxim Machine gun in the late 1800's. Today, almost every soldier has their own machine gun.

Goes back a lot further than that. They said the same thing when the crossbow started becoming popular.

[psCargile]

Well, the good news is that machines fail, including launch mechanisms, rocket motors, guidance systems, heat shields, and nuclear warheads, so only a percentage of the total nuclear weapons launched will detonate on target.

[hunterG7343]

Why no one can imagine that maybe there is a human being who can destroy a half of planet without even blinking? Unfortunately, those kind of people live and they will be living as long as humanity exist.

[humbertolyng23]

Thanks for giving us all this fascinating data, nicely, this content is basically wonderful and I also take pleasure in an individual with regard to writing a great document for all of us, We are will onward that to all or any my friend,ersus More than likely that they may go for the lowdown because of this submit.