Nuclear War?

[Asasia]

OP Is saying that if you are running low on resources that you would attack another country for it's resources. So here is how it would look "HEY! THAT COUNTRY OVER THERE HAS IRON! LETS REDUCE THAT COUNTRY TO A NUCLEAR WASTELAND!"

[EnragedMaldivians]

A calculated decision to initiate a nuclear war by any State is highly unlikely. A nuclear war being initiated due to a misreading of (random) incidents and intentions of the activities of other states is something that has come closer to happening than most people realise; while nothing to be paranoid about, it is not a consideration to take lightly.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

If you haven't heard Russia is supplying Iran with guns!?
S 400 anti aircraft system?That didn't get sold at the end and they just gave them blueprints?

And obviously them selling weapons means that they'll sacrifice themselves if Iran was nuked.


Have ANY of you studied international relations at all?

No. But they do play Risk, and that's how things work *nods*

[Wisconsin9]

While I have strong doubts about a full-scale exchange between... just about anybody and the United States, Russia, China, Britain, or France, a small exchange in the Middle East wouldn't surprise me (if the Iranians actually do have a nuclear weapons program and get it working), and I'd be surprised even less by an exchange between India and Pakistan.

[Divair]

And obviously them selling weapons means that they'll sacrifice themselves if Iran was nuked.


Have ANY of you studied international relations at all?

No. But they do play Risk, and that's how things work *nods*

Clearly.

[Rio Cana]

You never know it could happen. I do know Russias nuclear missiles are semi-automatic which means a computer that thinks that Russia command center has been hit could send the codes to launch the Russian missiles.


Found this video which shows all the nuclear tests up to 1998 which means they do not show NK. Looking at this video its a wonder they did not crack our planet with all those tests. Did not know the French use to explode nukes in Northern Sahara. Also did not know that the UK. use to explode nukes in Australia. Only South America and Antartica saw no tests.

Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U8CZAKSsNA

[Augarundus]

Well, Kagan and Meirscheimer both seem to conclude that great power wars are still a major possibility in the modern era (and that the promise of "perpetual peace" - like the peace of the 19th century - is illusory). The Human Security Report also critiques the theory and empirics of nuclear deterrence.

So, yes. It is entirely possible that, by either intentional or miscalculated decision, a nuclear war will wipe us all off the face of the earth.

I doubt it would wipe us all off the face of the earth. Firstly, there are several nations that would not be targeted (ones in Africa spring to my mind first and foremost). Secondly, nuclear winter is more or less a myth.

Just some evidence I have that seems to indicate nuclear weapons use causes extinction:

Nuclear war causes extinction- their evidence ignores new scientific research
Robock 11 – Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers, PhD from MIT (5/19/2011, Alan, “Nuclear winter is a real and present danger”, Nature, Vol. 473, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/N ... t.pdf) MGM
In the 1980s, discussion and debate about the possibility of a ‘nuclear winter’ helped to end the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. As former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview in 2000: “Models made by Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on Earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honour and morality, to act.” As a result, the number of nuclear weapons in the world started to fall, from a peak of about 70,000 in the 1980s to a total of about 22,000 today. In another five years that number could go as low as 5,000, thanks to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the United States and Russia, signed on 8 April 2010. Yet the environmental threat of nuclear war has not gone away. The world faces the prospect of a smaller, but still catastrophic, nuclear conflict. There are now nine nuclear-weapons states. Use of a fraction of the global nuclear arsenal by anyone, from the superpowers to India versus Pakistan, still presents the largest potential environmental danger to the planet by humans. That threat is being ignored. One reason for this denial is that the prospect of a nuclear war is so horrific on so many levels that most people simply look away. Two further reasons are myths that persist among the general public: that the nuclear winter theory has been disproved, and that nuclear winter is no longer a threat. These myths need to be debunked. The term ‘nuclear winter’, coined by Carl Sagan and his colleagues in a 1983 paper1 in Science, describes the dramatic effects on the climate caused by smoke from fires ignited by nuclear attacks on cities and industrial areas. In the 1980s my colleagues and I calculated, using the best climate models available at the time, that if one-third of the existing arsenal was used, there would be so much smoke that surface temperatures would plummet below freezing around the world for months, killing virtually all plants and producing worldwide famine. More people could die in China from starvation than in the nations actively bombing each other. As many countries around the world realized that a superpower nuclear war would be a disaster for them, they pressured the superpowers to end their arms race. Sagan did a good job of summarizing the policy impacts2 in 1984: although weapons were continuing to be built, it would be suicide to use them. The idea of climatic catastrophe was fought against by those who wanted to keep the nuclear-weapon industry alive, or who supported the growth of nuclear arsenals politically3. Scientifically, there was no real debate about the concept, only about the details. In 1986, atmospheric researchers Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider wrote a piece in Foreign Affairs appraising the theory4 and highlighting what they saw as the patchiness of the effect. They coined the term ‘nuclear autumn’, noting that it wouldn’t be ‘winter’ everywhere in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. They didn’t mean for people to think that it would be all raking leaves and football games, but many members of the public, and some pro-nuclear advocates, preferred to take it that way. The fight over the details of the modelling caused a rift between Sagan and Schneider that never healed. When I bring up the topic of nuclear winter, people invariably tell me that they think the theory has been disproved. But research continues to support the original concept. By 2007, models had began to approximate a realistic atmosphere up to 80 kilometres above Earth’s surface, including the stratosphere and mesosphere. This enabled me, and my coauthors, to calculate for the first time that smoke particles would be heated by the Sun and lifted into the upper stratosphere, where they would stay for many years5,6. So the cooling would last for much longer than we originally thought. DARK DAYS Many of those who do accept the nuclearwinter concept think that the scenario applies only to a mass conflict, on a scale no longer conceivable in the modern world. This is also false. A ‘small’ nuclear war between India and Pakistan, with each using 50 Hiroshima-size bombs (far less than 1% of the current arsenal), if dropped on megacity targets in each country would produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history5. Five million tonnes of black carbon smoke would be emitted into the upper troposphere from the burning cities, and then be lofted into the stratosphere by the heat of the Sun. Temperatures would be lower than during the ‘Little Ice Age’ (1400–1850), during which famine killed millions. For several years, growing seasons would be shortened by weeks in the mid-latitudes (see ‘A decade of cooling). Brian Toon at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Richard Turco at the University of California, Los Angeles, Georgiy Stenchikov at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and I, all of whom were pioneers in nuclear-winter research in the 1980s, have tried, along with our students, to publicize our results. We have published refereed journal articles, popular pieces in Physics Today and Scientific American, a policy forum in Science, and now this article. But Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy, perhaps the two most prominent foreign-policy magazines in English, would not even review articles we submitted. We have had no luck getting attention from the US government. Toon and I visited the US Congress and gave briefings to congressional staff on the subject two years ago, but nothing happened as a result. The US President’s science adviser John Holdren has not responded to our requests — in 2009 and more recently — for consideration of new scientific results in US nuclear policy. The only interest at a national level I have had was somewhat surreal: in September 2010, Fidel Castro summoned me to a conference on nuclear winter in Havana, to help promote his new view that a nuclear conflict would bring about Armageddon. The next day, my talk — the entire 90 minutes including questions — was broadcast on nationwide television in prime time, and appeared on the front page of the two national newspapers in Cuba. As in the 1980s, it is still too difficult for most people to fully grasp the consequences of a nuclear conflict. But it must be grasped. We scientists must continue to push our results out to the public and to policymakers, so they can in turn push political will in the direction of disarmament. Just as Gorbachev, armed with the knowledge of nuclear winter, helped to end the cold war, so too can the politicians of today use science to support further reductions in arms. The New START treaty is not enough.

Nuclear war causes extinction
SGR 2003 - Scientists for Global Responsibility (Newsletter, “Does anybody remember the Nuclear Winter?” July 27, http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/NuclearWi ... 7.htm)
Obviously, when a nuclear bomb hits a target, it causes a massive amount of devastation, with the heat, blast and radiation killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people instantly and causing huge damage to infrastructure. But in addition to this, a nuclear explosion throws up massive amounts of dust and smoke. For example, a large nuclear bomb bursting at ground level would throw up about a million tonnes of dust. As a consequence of a nuclear war, then, the dust and the smoke produced would block out a large fraction of the sunlight and the sun's heat from the earth's surface, so it would quickly become be dark and cold - temperatures would drop by something in the region of 10-20ºC - many places would feel like they were in an arctic winter. It would take months for the sunlight to get back to near normal. The drop in light and temperature would quickly kill crops and other plant and animal life while humans, already suffering from the direct effects of the war, would be vulnerable to malnutrition and disease on a massive scale. In the case of an (e.g.) accidental nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia, the main effects would be felt in the northern hemisphere, as the dust and smoke would quickly circulate across this area. But even in this case, it would soon affect the tropics - where crops and other plant/ animal life are especially sensitive to cold. Hence, even in these areas there would be major problems.

Nuke war triggers extinction---new science proves.
Toon and Robock 10, Toon: chair of the Dept of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a member of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado @ Boulder. Robock is a Proff of atmospheric science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey Local Nuclear War, Global Suffering; January 2010; Scientific American Magazine; 8 Page(s), http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?f ... E2611)
Twenty-five years ago international teams of scientists showed that a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union could produce a “nuclear winter.” The smoke from vast fires started by bombs dropped on cities and industrial areas would envelop the planet and absorb so much sunlight that the earth’s surface would get cold, dark and dry, killing plants worldwide and eliminating our food supply. Surface temperatures would reach winter values in the summer. International discussion about this prediction, fueled largely by astronomer Carl Sagan, forced the leaders of the two superpowers to confront the possibility that their arms race endangered not just themselves but the entire human race. Countries large and small demanded disarmament. Nuclear winter became an important factor in ending the nuclear arms race. Looking back later, in 2000, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev observed, “Models made by Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and morality, to act.” Why discuss this topic now that the cold war has ended? Because as other nations continue to acquire nuclear weapons, smaller, regional nuclear wars could create a similar global catastrophe. New analyses reveal that a conflict between India and Pakistan, for example, in which 100 nuclear bombs were dropped on cities and industrial areas--only 0.4 percent of the world's more than 25,000 warheads--would produce enough smoke to cripple global agriculture. A regional war could cause widespread loss of life even in countries far away from the conflict. Regional War Threatens the World By deploying modern computers and modern climate models, the two of us and our colleagues have shown that not only were the ideas of the 1980s correct but the effects would last for at least 10 years, much longer than previously thought. And by doing calculations that assess decades of time, only now possible with fast, current computers, and by including in our calculations the oceans and the entire atmosphere--also only now possible--we have found that the smoke from even a regional war would be heated and lofted by the sun and remain suspended in the upper atmosphere for years, continuing to block sunlight and to cool the earth. India and Pakistan, which together have more than 100 nuclear weapons, may be the most worrisome adversaries capable of a regional nuclear conflict today. But other countries besides the U.S. and Russia (which have thousands) are well endowed: China, France and the U.K. have hundreds of nuclear warheads; Israel has more than 80, North Korea has about 10 and Iran may well be trying to make its own. In 2004 this situation prompted one of us (Toon) and later Rich Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles, both veterans of the 1980s investigations, to begin evaluating what the global environmental effects of a regional nuclear war would be and to take as our test case an engagement between India and Pakistan. The latest estimates by David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security and by Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council are that India has 50 to 60 assembled weapons (with enough plutonium for 100) and that Pakistan has 60 weapons. Both countries continue to increase their arsenals. Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons tests indicate that the yield of the warheads would be similar to the 15-kiloton explosive yield (equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT) of the bomb the U.S. used on Hiroshima. Toon and Turco, along with Charles Bardeen, now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, modeled what would happen if 50 Hiroshima-size bombs were dropped across the highest population-density targets in Pakistan and if 50 similar bombs were also dropped across India. Some people maintain that nuclear weapons would be used in only a measured way. But in the wake of chaos, fear and broken communications that would occur once a nuclear war began, we doubt leaders would limit attacks in any rational manner. This likelihood is particularly true for Pakistan, which is small and could be quickly overrun in a conventional conflict. Peter R. Lavoy of the Naval Postgraduate School, for example, has analyzed the ways in which a conflict between India and Pakistan might occur and argues that Pakistan could face a decision to use all its nuclear arsenal quickly before India swamps its military bases with traditional forces. Obviously, we hope the number of nuclear targets in any future war will be zero, but policy makers and voters should know what is possible. Toon and Turco found that more than 20 million people in the two countries could die from the blasts, fires and radioactivity--a horrible slaughter. But the investigators were shocked to discover that a tremendous amount of smoke would be generated, given the megacities in the two countries, assuming each fire would burn the same area that actually did burn in Hiroshima and assuming an amount of burnable material per person based on various studies. They calculated that the 50 bombs exploded in Pakistan would produce three teragrams of smoke, and the 50 bombs hitting India would generate four (one teragram equals a million metric tons). Satellite observations of actual forest fires have shown that smoke can be lofted up through the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and sometimes then into the lower stratosphere (the layer just above, extending to about 30 miles). Toon and Turco also did some "back of the envelope" calculations of the possible climate impact of the smoke should it enter the stratosphere. The large magnitude of such effects made them realize they needed help from a climate modeler. It turned out that one of us (Robock) was already working with Luke Oman, now at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, who was finishing his Ph.D. at Rutgers University on the climatic effects of volcanic eruptions, and with Georgiy L. Stenchikov, also at Rutgers and an author of the first Russian work on nuclear winter. They developed a climate model that could be used fairly easily for the nuclear blast calculations. Robock and his colleagues, being conservative, put five teragrams of smoke into their modeled upper troposphere over India and Pakistan on an imaginary May 15. The model calculated how winds would blow the smoke around the world and how the smoke particles would settle out from the atmosphere. The smoke covered all the continents within two weeks. The black, sooty smoke absorbed sunlight, warmed and rose into the stratosphere. Rain never falls there, so the air is never cleansed by precipitation; particles very slowly settle out by falling, with air resisting them. Soot particles are small, with an average diameter of only 0.1 micron (μm), and so drift down very slowly. They also rise during the daytime as they are heated by the sun, repeatedly delaying their elimination. The calculations showed that the smoke would reach far higher into the upper stratosphere than the sulfate particles that are produced by episodic volcanic eruptions. Sulfate particles are transparent and absorb much less sunlight than soot and are also bigger, typically 0.5 μm. The volcanic particles remain airborne for about two years, but smoke from nuclear fires would last a decade. Killing Frosts in Summer The climatic response to the smoke was surprising. Sunlight was immediately reduced, cooling the planet to temperatures lower than any experienced for the past 1,000 years. The global average cooling, of about 1.25 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit), lasted for several years, and even after 10 years the temperature was still 0.5 degree C colder than normal. The models also showed a 10 percent reduction in precipitation worldwide. Precipitation, river flow and soil moisture all decreased because blocking sunlight reduces evaporation and weakens the hydrologic cycle. Drought was largely concentrated in the lower latitudes, however, because global cooling would retard the Hadley air circulation pattern in the tropics, which produces a large fraction of global precipitation. In critical areas such as the Asian monsoon regions, rainfall dropped by as much as 40 percent. The cooling might not seem like much, but even a small dip can cause severe consequences. Cooling and diminished sunlight would, for example, shorten growing seasons in the midlatitudes. More insight into the effects of cooling came from analyses of the aftermaths of massive volcanic eruptions. Every once in a while such eruptions produce temporary cooling for a year or two. The largest of the past 500 years, the 1815 Tambora eruption in Indonesia, blotted the sun and produced global cooling of about 0.5 degree C for a year; 1816 became known as "The Year

Nuke war causes extinction---even a small fraction of weapon use sparks famine and ecological, global climate catastrophe
Star 9, University of Sydney, 8/2/09, (Stephen Starr and Peter King, , “Nuclear suicide”, Sunday, 02 August 2009, http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions ... .html)
But there is little evidence yet that either the government or the Commission is fully alert to the most momentous truth of the present era: Our best science now predicts that nuclear arsenals are fundamentally incompatible with continued human existence. It is imperative that the message coming from scientists in the US, Russia and elsewhere about the environmental consequences of nuclear war be included in the general debate about the control and abolition of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the nuclear weapon states apparently remain oblivious to the climatic, ecological and biological consequences of nuclear war. No "environmental impact statement" has ever been created for the US or Russian nuclear weaponry, which is one of the reasons why there still are 22,000 intact nuclear weapons in their deployed and reserve arsenals. However, new peer-reviewed studies done at several US universities predict the detonation of even a tiny fraction of the global nuclear arsenal will result in major changes in the global climate and massive destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer (which protects the Earth from deadly UV light). Even a "regional" nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, fought with 100 Hiroshima-size weapons, is predicted to loft five million tons of smoke above cloud level; there it would block about 10 per cent of warming sunlight from reaching the surface of the Northern Hemisphere. This would produce average surface temperatures colder than any experienced for the last 1000 years. The smoke would remain in the stratosphere for more than a decade and seriously impact global climate. It would probably be too cold to grow wheat in Canada for several years; grain exports would likely cease from grain-exporting nations .and global nuclear famine would result, Within a few years, most of the already-hungry human populations could perish, and the populations of any nation dependent upon grain imports would be at risk.

Even a small nuclear war causes extinction
Reville 2-4-2010
William, associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC, “Nuclear winter weather forecast”
The Irish Times, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sci ... 27687.html
You might think that the probability of nuclear winter has all but disappeared now that the Cold War has ended. Unfortunately not. Nuclear arsenals have grown in many countries and the prospect of regional nuclear conflicts is all too real. Recent calculations, described by Alan Robock and Owen B Toon in Scientific American , January 2010, demonstrate that even a regional nuclear war could precipitate global nuclear winter. Nuclear winter, you will recall, develops as follows. Nuclear explosions ignite massive fire-storms, causing smoke to rise high into the atmosphere to be carried around the globe. This smoke blots out the sun, causing darkness and permanent freezing. Plants cannot grow, food production quickly fails and billions die. Civilisation is destroyed and, possibly, all humans die. This scenario has been carefully studied and nuclear winter is the mature prediction of mainstream science. Since the end of the Cold War, America and Russia have greatly reduced their arsenals, but they still retain considerable nuclear weaponry. Nine countries have nuclear weapons and they are ranked as follows in order of the number of warheads they possess: Russia (15,000), US (9,900), France (350), China (200), UK (200), Israel (80), Pakistan (60), India (50), North Korea (10+). In addition, Iran may be developing nuclear weapons. There is a real possibility of nuclear war between India and Pakistan and Robock and Toon have evaluated the consequences. They assume that such a war would quickly escalate out of control, with the deployment of full nuclear arsenals on both sides. They reason as follows: Pakistan is a small country and could be easily overrun and immobilised by Indian conventional forces. Pakistan would be tempted to release its nuclear arsenal before being overrun and India would respond in kind. They assume that each side would drop 50 bombs on major cities and industrial areas – each about the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The authors estimate that 20 million would die immediately from direct blast, fire and radiation. Seven million metric tons of smoke would then rise up through the atmosphere (troposphere) and into the lower stratosphere. Within five days the smoke would cover the war region, within nine days it would reach around the globe, and within 49 days it would cover the inhabited earth. Smoke from nuclear fires would stay aloft for 10 years and would block enough sunlight to maintain overcast conditions everywhere. Climate models forecast that this smoke would quickly cool the earth to below temperatures experienced for the past 1,000 years.

Nuclear war causes human extinction
PHILLIPS 2000 (Dr. Allen, Peace Activist, Nuclear Winter Revisited, October, http://www.peace.ca/nuclearwinterrevisited.htm)
Those of us who were involved in peace activities in the 80's probably remember a good deal about nuclear winter. Those who have become involved later may have heard little about it. No scientific study has been published since 1990, and very little appears now in the peace or nuclear abolition literature. *It is still important.* With thousands of rocket-launched weapons at "launch-on-warning", any day there could be an all-out nuclear war by accident. The fact that there are only half as many nuclear bombs as there were in the 80's makes no significant difference. Deaths from world-wide starvation after the war would be several times the number from direct effects of the bombs, and the surviving fraction of the human race might then diminish and vanish after a few generations of hunger and disease, in a radioactive environment.

Nuclear war destroys the environment and causes human extinction
PHILLIPS 2000 (Dr. Allen, Peace Activist, Nuclear Winter Revisited, October, http://www.peace.ca/nuclearwinterrevisited.htm)
The 1980's research showed that the dust and the smoke would block out a large fraction of the sunlight and the sun's heat from the earth's surface, so it would be dark and cold like an arctic winter. It would
take months for the sunlight to get back to near normal.
The cloud of dust and smoke would circle the northern hemisphere quickly. Soon it could affect the tropics, and cold would bring absolute disaster for all crops there. Quite likely it would cross the
equator and affect the southern hemisphere to a smaller degree.
While the temperature at the surface would be low, the temperature of the upper part of the troposphere (5-11 km) would rise because of sunlight absorbed by the smoke, so there would be an absolutely massive
temperature inversion. That would keep many other products of combustion down at the levels people breathe, making a smog such as has never been seen before. PYROTOXINS is a word coined for all the noxious
vapours that would be formed by combustion of the plastics, rubber, petroleum, and other products of civilization. It is certain that these poisons would be formed, but we do not have quantitative estimates. The
amount of combustible material is enormous, and it would produce dioxins, furans, PCB's, cyanides, sulphuric and sulphurous acids, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in amounts that would
make current concerns about atmospheric pollution seem utterly trivial. There would also be toxic chemicals like ammonia and chlorine from damaged storage tanks.
Another bad environmental thing that would happen is destruction of the ozone layer. The reduction in the ozone layer could be 50% - 70% over the whole northern hemisphere - very much worse than the current losses
that we are properly concerned about. Nitrogen oxides are major chemical agents for this. They are formed by combination of the oxygen and nitrogen of the air in any big fire and around nuclear explosions,
as they are on a smaller scale around lightning flashes. So after the smoke cleared and the sun began to shine again, there would be a large increase of UV reaching the earth's surface. This is bad for people in
several ways, but don't worry about the skin cancers ? not many of the survivors would live long enough for that to matter. UV is also bad for many other living things, notably plankton, which are the bottom layer
of the whole marine food chain. There would likely be enough UV to cause blindness in many animals. Humans can protect their eyes if they are aware of the danger. Animals do not know to do that, and blind
animals do not survive. Blind insects do not pollinate flowers, so there is another reason why human crops and natural food supplies for animals would fail.
Altogether, nuclear winter would be an ecological disaster of the same sort of magnitude as the major extinctions of species that have occurred in the past, the most famous one being 65 million years ago at the cretaceous extinction. Of all the species living at the time, about half became extinct. The theory is that a large meteor made a great crater in the Gulf of California, putting a trillion tons of rock debris into the atmosphere. That is a thousand times as much rock as is predicted for a nuclear war, but the soot from fires blocks sunlight more effectively than rock debris. In nuclear winter there would also be radioactive contamination giving worldwide background radiation doses many times larger than has ever happened during the 3 billion years of evolution. The radiation would notably worsen things for existing species, though it might, by increasing mutations, allow quicker evolution of new species (perhaps mainly insects and grasses) that could tolerate the post-war conditions. (I should just mention that there is no way the radioactivity from a nuclear war could destroy "all life on earth". People must stop saying that. There will be plenty of evolution after a war, but it may not include us.)

Winter:

Nuclear war blocks out sunlight, causing earth temperatures to drop at least 20°C by turning
off the greenhouse effect
Sagan and Turco, 1990 (Carl and Richard, astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell University, and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment, “A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race,” pg 23-4)
<In a nuclear war, powerful nuclear explosions at the ground would propel fine particles high into the stratosphere. Much of the dust would be carried up by the fireball itself. Some would be sucked up the stem of the mushroom cloud. Even much more modest explosions on or above cities would produce massive fires, as occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These fires consume wood, petroleum, plastics, roofing tar, natural gas, and a wide variety of other combustibles. The resulting smoke is far more dangerous to the climate than is the dust. Two kinds of smoke are generated. Smoldering combustion is a low-temperature flameless burning in which fine, oily, bluish-white organic particles are produced. Cigarette smoke is an example. By contrast, in flaming combustion—when there's an adequate supply of oxygen—the burning organic material is converted in significant part to elemental carbon, and the sooty smoke is very dark. Soot is one of the blackest materials nature is able to manufacture. As in an oil refinery fire, or a burning pile of auto tires. or a conflagration in a modern skyscraper—more generally in any big city fire—great clouds of roiling, ugly, dark, sootv smoke would rise high above the cities in a nuclear war, and 'spread first in longitude, then in latitude. The high-altitude dust particles reflect additional sunlight back to space and cool the Earth a little. More important are the dense palls of black smoke high in the atmosphere; they block the sunlight from reaching the lower atmosphere, where the greenhouse gases mainly reside. These gases are thereby deprived of their leverage on the global climate. The greenhouse effect is turned down and the Earth's surface is cooled much more. Because cities and petroleum repositories are so rich in combustible materials, it doesn't require very many nuclear explosions over them to make so much smoke as to obscure the entire Northern Hemisphere and more. If the dark, sooty clouds are nearly opaque and cover an extensive area, then the greenhouse effect can be almost entirely turned off. In the more likely case that some sunlight trickles through, the temperatures nevertheless may drop 10 or 20°C or more, depending on season and geographical locale. In many places, it may at midday get as dark as it used to be on a moonlit night before the nuclear war began. The resulting environmental changes may last for months or years. If the greenhouse effect is a blanket in which we wrap ourselves to keep warm, nuclear winter kicks the blanket off. This darkening and cooling of the Earth following nuclear war— along with other ancillary consequences—is what we mean by nuclear winter. (A more detailed discussion of the global climate and how nuclear winter works is given in Appendix A.)>


Reactor targeting hasn’t been accounted for—fallout risks are huge
NISSANI 1992 (Moti, Professor at Wayne State, Lives in the Balance: The Cold War and American Politics 1945-1991, http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/CH2.html&#41;
Radioactive materials produced in nuclear power plants decay more slowly than the by-products of nuclear bombs,3 so the devastation of nuclear power plants would considerably increase the area which would remain unsafe for human habitation after the war. For breeder reactors, reprocessing facilities, and near-ground radioactive waste-disposal sites, the picture is even grimmer: certain portions of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the eastern half of the continental U.S., the states of Washington and California, and considerable portions of Western Europe, could be contaminated for decades. Even centuries later, it might be advisable to check radioactivity levels before buying land in these regions.
The wartime vaporization of most nuclear power facilities will increase (by about one-third) average global fallout and its long-term effects. Moreover, because radioactive materials from this source are longer-lived than materials produced by nuclear bombs, their relative contribution to the global fallout will increase over time. For instance, ten years after the war, total radioactivity in global fallout would be three times higher with such vaporization than without it.
Some people find it hard to believe that something as unpleasant as this could indeed take place, but war and politics obey their own logic. A junior Soviet officer who defected to the West tells us that, due to shortage of uranium and plutonium in the Soviet Union, "not all Soviet rockets have warheads . . . so that . . . use is being made of radioactive material which is . . . waste produced by nuclear power stations."22 By the 1980s, at the latest, both sides had enough accurate warheads, so they may have adopted the more efficient course of spreading radioactive dust by targeting nuclear power installations. Needless to say, if rumors regarding the intentional destruction of Iraqi nuclear power facilities during the Persian Gulf War turn out to be true, they support the view that nuclear power plants will be targeted in an all-out war. It also goes without saying that in the future, nuclear states may be far less cautious than the USA and the USSR have been.
In sum, if this comes to pass, large areas of the northern hemisphere will be contaminated for years and global fallout will pose greater risks for longer periods of time. As a result of both, there will be greater loss of lives, property, and land than previously believed. Unquestionably then, and regardless of whatever else one might think about them, nuclear power plants and installations constitute a grave risk to a nation's security.

Testing data proves massive casualties from fallout worldwide
US ACDA 1975 (U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, “Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War,” http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Effec ... shtml&#41;
Much of our knowledge of the production and distribution of radionuclides has been derived from the period of intensive nuclear testing in the atmosphere during the 1950's and early 1960's. It is estimated that more than 500 megatons of nuclear yield were detonated in the atmosphere between 1945 and 1971, about half of this yield being produced by a fission reaction. The peak occurred in 1961-62, when a total of 340 megatons were detonated in the atmosphere by the United States and Soviet Union. The limited nuclear test ban treaty of 1963 ended atmospheric testing for the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, but two major non-signatories, France and China, continued nuclear testing at the rate of about 5 megatons annually. (France now conducts its nuclear tests underground.)
A U.N. scientific committee has estimated that the cumulative per capita dose to the world's population up to the year 2000 as a result of atmospheric testing through 1970 (cutoff date of the study) will be the equivalent of 2 years' exposure to natural background radiation on the earth's surface. For the bulk of the world's population, internal and external radiation doses of natural origin amount to less than one-tenth rad annually. Thus nuclear testing to date does not appear to pose a severe radiation threat in global terms. But a nuclear war releasing 10 or 100 times the total yield of all previous weapons tests could pose a far greater worldwide threat. The biological effects of all forms of ionizing radiation have been calculated within broad ranges by the National Academy of Sciences. Based on these calculations, fallout from the 500-plus megatons of nuclear testing through 1970 will produce between 2 and 25 cases of genetic disease per million live births in the next generation.
This means that between 3 and 50 persons per billion births in the post-testing generation will have genetic damage for each megaton of nuclear yield exploded. With similar uncertainty, it is possible to estimate that the induction of cancers would range from 75 to 300 cases per megaton for each billion people in the post-test generation.
If we apply these very rough yardsticks to a large-scale nuclear war in which 10,000 megatons of nuclear force are detonated, the effects on a world population of 5 billion appear enormous. Allowing for uncertainties about the dynamics of a possible nuclear war, radiation-induced cancers and genetic damage together over 30 years are estimated to range from 1.5 to 30 million for the world population as a whole. This would mean one additional case for every 100 to 3,000 people or about 1/2 percent to 15 percent of the estimated peacetime cancer death rate in developed countries. As will be seen, moreover, there could be other, less well understood effects which would drastically increase suffering and death.

Nuclear war would cause worldwide fallout
US ACDA 1975 (U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, “Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War,” http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Effec ... shtml&#41;
When a weapon is detonated at the surface of the earth or at low altitudes, the heat pulse vaporizes the bomb material, target, nearby structures, and underlying soil and rock, all of which become entrained in an expanding, fast-rising fireball. As the fireball rises, it expands and cools, producing the distinctive mushroom cloud, signature of nuclear explosions. The altitude reached by the cloud depends on the force of the explosion. When yields are in the low-kiloton range, the cloud will remain in the lower atmosphere and its effects will be entirely local. But as yields exceed 30 kilotons, part of the cloud will punch into the stratosphere, which begins about 7 miles up. With yields of 2-5 megatons or more, virtually all of the cloud of radioactive debris and fine dust will climb into the stratosphere. The heavier materials reaching the lower edge of the stratosphere will soon settle out, as did the Castle/Bravo fallout at Rongelap. But the lighter particles will penetrate high into the stratosphere, to altitudes of 12 miles and more, and remain there for months and even years. Stratospheric circulation and diffusion will spread this material around the world.

Smaller yield of modern weapons increases fallout damage
SUBLETTE 1997 (Carey, “Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions,” http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html&#41;
The megaton class weapons that were developed in the US and USSR during the fifties and sixties have been largely retired, being replaced with much smaller yield warheads. The yield of a modern strategic warhead is, with few exceptions, now typically in the range of 200-750 kt. Recent work with sophisticated climate models has shown that this reduction in yield results in a much larger proportion of the fallout being deposited in the lower atmosphere, and a much faster and more intense deposition of fallout than had been assumed in studies made during the sixties and seventies. The reduction in aggregate strategic arsenal yield that occurred when high yield weapons were retired in favor of more numerous lower yield weapons has actually increased the fallout risk.

Lol:

Nuclear war causes the earth to explode
CHALKO 2003 (Dr. Tom J., MSc., Ph.D., Head of Geophysics Research, Scientific E Research P/L, “Can a Neutron Bomb Accelerate Global Volcanic Activity?” http://sci-e-research.com/neutron_bomb.html&#41;
Consequences of using modern nuclear weapons can be far more serious than previously imagined. These consequences relate to the fact that most of the heat generated in the planetary interior is a result of nuclear decay. Over the last few decades, all superpowers have been developing so-called "neutron bombs". These bombs are designed to emit intensive neutron radiation while creating relatively little local mechanical damage. Military are very keen to use neutron bombs in combat, because lethal neutron radiation can peneterate even the largest and deepest bunkers. However, the military seem to ignore the fact that a neutron radiation is capable to reach significant depths in the planetary interior. In the process of passing through the planet and losing its intensity, a neutron beam stimulates nuclei of radioactive isotopes naturally present inside the planet to disintegrate. This disintegration in turn, generates more neutron and other radiation. The entire process causes increased nuclear heat generation in the planetary interior, far greater than the initial energy of the bomb. It typically takes many days or even weeks for this extra heat to conduct/convect to the surface of the planet and cause increased seismic/volcanic activity. Due to this variable delay, nuclear tests are not currently associated with seismic/volcanic activity, simply because it is believed that there is no theoretical basis for such an association. Perhaps you heard that after every major series of nuclear test there is always a period of increased seismic activity in some part of the world. This observable fact CANNOT be explained by direct energy of the explosion. The mechanism of neutron radiation accelerating decay of radioactive isotopes in the planetary interior, however, is a VERY PLAUSIBLE and realistic explanation. The process of accelerating volcanic activity is nuclear in essence. Accelerated decay of unstable radioactive isotopes already present in the planetary interior provides the necessary energy. The TRUE danger of modern nuclear weaponry is that their neutron radiation is capable to induce global overheating of the planetary interior, global volcanic activity and, in extreme circumstances, may even cause the entire planet to explode.

Ozone:

New models show that even a regional nuclear war would cause massive ozone loss
IPPNW 2010 (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Won the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, “Zero is the Only Option: Four Medical and Environmental Cases for Eradicating Nuclear Weapons,” http://ippnweducation.files.wordpress.c ... 0.pdf&#41;
A nuclear war using only a small fraction of current global arsenals would quickly cause prolonged and catastrophic stratospheric ozone depletion. The impact on human and animal health and on fundamental ecosystems would be disastrous. Scientists have known for more than two decades that a global nuclear war—an event that came perilously close during the Cold War between the US and the former Soviet Union, and which cannot be ruled out as long as those massive arsenals exist—would severely damage the Earth’s protective ozone layer. Studies in the 1980s by the US National Research Council and others showed that solar heating of the smoke produced by massive fires would displace and destroy significant amounts of stratospheric ozone.6
Early in 2008, physicists and atmospheric scientists from the University of Colorado, UCLA, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research published important new findings that a regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs would result in severe losses in stratospheric ozone.7 The scientists concluded that a regional nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan in which each used 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons (~15 kt) would produce an estimated 6.6 teragrams (Tg) of black carbon. In addition to the global surface cooling described above, large losses in stratospheric ozone would persist for years. The global mean ozone column would be depleted by as much as 25% for five years after the nuclear exchange. At mid-latitudes (25-45%) and at northern high latitudes (50-70%), ozone depletion would be even more severe and would last just as long. Substantial increases in ultraviolet radiation would have serious consequences for human health. Those consequences, as we know from earlier studies of stratospheric ozone loss—the “ozone hole” that prompted the Montreal Protocol and the phasing out of ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)— include steep increases in skin cancer, crop damage, and destruction of marine phytoplankton.
A 1-Tg infusion of soot would also dangerously deplete stratospheric ozone, although the effects would be smaller and shorter-lived than in the 5-Tg case. The study concluded that global mean ozone column losses would peak at 8% and that the perturbation would last up to four years. One of the most surprising findings is that the magnitude and duration of the predicted ozone reductions from the regional nuclear war considered by the scientists are greater than those calculated in the 1980s for global thermonuclear war with yields a thousand times greater.

Nuke war causes ozone loss and extinction
US ACDA 1975 (U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, “Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War,” http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Effec ... shtml&#41;
More worrisome is the possible effect of nuclear explosions on ozone in the stratosphere. Not until the 20th century was the unique and paradoxical role of ozone fully recognized. On the other hand, in concentrations greater than I part per million in the air we breathe, ozone is toxic; one major American city, Los Angeles, has established a procedure for ozone alerts and warnings. On the other hand, ozone is a critically important feature of the stratosphere from the standpoint of maintaining life on the earth.
The reason is that while oxygen and nitrogen in the upper reaches of the atmosphere can block out solar ultraviolet photons with wavelengths shorter than 2,420 angstroms (Å), ozone is the only effective shield in the atmosphere against solar ultraviolet radiation between 2,500 and 3,000 Å in wavelength. (See note 5.) Although ozone is extremely efficient at filtering out solar ultraviolet in 2,500-3,OOO Å region of the spectrum, some does get through at the higher end of the spectrum. Ultraviolet rays in the range of 2,800 to 3,200 Å which cause sunburn, prematurely age human skin and produce skin cancers. As early as 1840, arctic snow blindness was attributed to solar ultraviolet; and we have since found that intense ultraviolet radiation can inhibit photosynthesis in plants, stunt plant growth, damage bacteria, fungi, higher plants, insects and annuals, and produce genetic alterations.
Despite the important role ozone plays in assuring a livable environment at the earth's surface, the total quantity of ozone in the atmosphere is quite small, only about 3 parts per million. Furthermore, ozone is not a durable or static constituent of the atmosphere. It is constantly created, destroyed, and recreated by natural processes, so that the amount of ozone present at any given time is a function of the equilibrium reached between the creative and destructive chemical reactions and the solar radiation reaching the upper stratosphere.
The mechanism for the production of ozone is the absorption by oxygen molecules (O2) of relatively short-wavelength ultraviolet light. The oxygen molecule separates into two atoms of free oxygen, which immediately unite with other oxygen molecules on the surfaces of particles in the upper atmosphere. It is this union which forms ozone, or O3. The heat released by the ozone-forming process is the reason for the curious increase with altitude of the temperature of the stratosphere (the base of which is about 36,000 feet above the earth's surface).
While the natural chemical reaction produces about 4,500 tons of ozone per second in the stratosphere, this is offset by other natural chemical reactions which break down the ozone. By far the most significant involves nitric oxide (NO) which breaks ozone (O3) into molecules. This effect was discovered only in the last few years in studies of the environmental problems which might be encountered if large fleets of supersonic transport aircraft operate routinely in the lower stratosphere. According to a report by Dr. Harold S. Johnston, University of California at Berkeley-- prepared for the Department of Transportation's Climatic Impact Assessment Program--it now appears that the NO reaction is normally responsible for 50 to 70 percent of the destruction of ozone.
In the natural environment, there is a variety of means for the production of NO and its transport into the stratosphere. Soil bacteria produce nitrous oxide (N2O) which enters the lower atmosphere and slowly diffuses into the stratosphere, where it reacts with free oxygen (O) to form two NO molecules. Another mechanism for NO production in the lower atmosphere may be lightning discharges, and while NO is quickly washed out of the lower atmosphere by rain, some of it may reach the stratosphere. Additional amounts of NO are produced directly in the stratosphere by cosmic rays from the sun and interstellar sources.
It is because of this catalytic role which nitric oxide plays in the destruction of ozone that it is important to consider the effects of high-yield nuclear explosions on the ozone layer. The nuclear fireball and the air entrained within it are subjected to great heat, followed by relatively rapid cooling. These conditions are ideal for the production of tremendous amounts of NO from the air. It has been estimated that as much as 5,000 tons of nitric oxide is produced for each megaton of nuclear explosive power.
What would be the effects of nitric oxides driven into the stratosphere by an all-out nuclear war, involving the detonation of 10,000 megatons of explosive force in the northern hemisphere? According to the recent National Academy of Sciences study, the nitric oxide produced by the weapons could reduce the ozone levels in the northern hemisphere by as much as 30 to 70 percent.
To begin with, a depleted ozone layer would reflect back to the earth's surface less heat than would normally be the case, thus causing a drop in temperature--perhaps enough to produce serious effects on agriculture. Other changes, such as increased amounts of dust or different vegetation, might subsequently reverse this drop in temperature--but on the other hand, it might increase it.
Probably more important, life on earth has largely evolved within the protective ozone shield and is presently adapted rather precisely to the amount of solar ultraviolet which does get through. To defend themselves against this low level of ultraviolet, evolved external shielding (feathers, fur, cuticular waxes on fruit), internal shielding (melanin pigment in human skin, flavenoids in plant tissue), avoidance strategies (plankton migration to greater depths in the daytime, shade-seeking by desert iguanas) and, in almost all organisms but placental mammals, elaborate mechanisms to repair photochemical damage.
It is possible, however, that a major increase in solar ultraviolet might overwhelm the defenses of some and perhaps many terrestrial life forms. Both direct and indirect damage would then occur among the bacteria, insects, plants, and other links in the ecosystems on which human well-being depends. This disruption, particularly if it occurred in the aftermath of a major war involving many other dislocations, could pose a serious additional threat to the recovery of postwar society. The National Academy of Sciences report concludes that in 20 years the ecological systems would have essentially recovered from the increase in ultraviolet radiation--though not necessarily from radioactivity or other damage in areas close to the war zone. However, a delayed effect of the increase in ultraviolet radiation would be an estimated 3 to 30 percent increase in skin cancer for 40 years in the Northern Hemisphere's mid-latitudes.

A large-scale nuclear war (China-Russia or US-Russia) would probably cause extinction.... Indopak war is probably contained enough to not trigger nuclear winter, and China doesn't have the nuclear arsenal to take on the US in a conflict.

[Indira]

Unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely

[Big Jim P]

Nuclear warfare is merely the next logical step in evolution, and the prologue to the next chapter of human history.

Indeed. One day we will have even nastier weapons and nukes will lose their allure and be looked at as what they are: very powerful explosives.

[Rio Cana]

Question, did the Russian ever make more of and have in storage that super nuke they made and exploded decades ago.

Video of the Super Nuke -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4UeiE3ykww

[Augarundus]

Nuclear warfare is merely the next logical step in evolution, and the prologue to the next chapter of human history.

Indeed. One day we will have even nastier weapons and nukes will lose their allure and be looked at as what they are: very powerful explosives.

I don't think conventional warfare is obsolete, and I think it's a mistake to believe that nuclear weapons and "greater technological progress" will render it so. Nuclear deterrence doesn't universally hold true (especially if strategic defense systems are set up to prevent nuclear strikes - and I think this is a historical inevitability to heg against nuclear deployment), especially against smaller state actors (for whom the risk of a nuclear launch is so minor that the "nuclear bluff" isn't believable - they can act essentially with impunity unless some form of conventional - believable - deterrent is brought down against them).

The future will not just yield "nastier weapons" but better defense capabilities - traditional warfare won't be abolished by the arrival of bigger and bigger guns.

[Valtakuntia]

I don't think so.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Since a nuclear war, unless exceedingly carefully targeted, would damage the local resources, or make their extraction difficult/impossible, I doubt there may be a nuclear war over resources.
Conventional war over resources? I can easily see that. Conflicts that will, eventually, escalate to nuclear conflicts.

Russia has explicitly stated that the nuclear option is considered a viable response to conventional aggression against it.

[Big Jim P]

Indeed. One day we will have even nastier weapons and nukes will lose their allure and be looked at as what they are: very powerful explosives.

I don't think conventional warfare is obsolete, and I think it's a mistake to believe that nuclear weapons and "greater technological progress" will render it so. Nuclear deterrence doesn't universally hold true (especially if strategic defense systems are set up to prevent nuclear strikes - and I think this is a historical inevitability to heg against nuclear deployment), especially against smaller state actors (for whom the risk of a nuclear launch is so minor that the "nuclear bluff" isn't believable - they can act essentially with impunity unless some form of conventional - believable - deterrent is brought down against them).

The future will not just yield "nastier weapons" but better defense capabilities - traditional warfare won't be abolished by the arrival of bigger and bigger guns.

The almost universal "armor vs gun dichotomy. At the moment, "guns" in the form of nukes are ascendant. Eventually "armor" in the form of defense against nukes will be. Then greater weapons will be developed, followed by greater defenses. It has been going on as long as humans have fought.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Nuclear weapons are pretty overarching, Jim.
Armour can never defeat the gun, in the dichtomy. Hence why most nuclear strike plans call for hilarious strikes centred around not only your opponent's arsenal, but also his ballistic weapon defences and command structure.

[Big Jim P]

Nuclear weapons are pretty overarching, Jim.
Armour can never defeat the gun, in the dichtomy. Hence why most nuclear strike plans call for hilarious strikes centred around not only your opponent's arsenal, but also his ballistic weapon defences and command structure.

They are for now, but Armour can defeat the gun, right up until the time a bigger, better gun can be built.

Hell, if anyone was willing to go through the expense, we have the capability to build anti-matter bombs right now.

I think I just argued myself into agreeing with your statement.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I don't think there's any worth in anti-matter weaponry.
I'd rather leave it as the scifi buzzword it is.

[Big Jim P]

I don't think there's any worth in anti-matter weaponry.
I'd rather leave it as the scifi buzzword it is.

Scifi buzzword,yes, but look at it: we can generate anti-matter and contain it. Building a bomb is only a question of how much money are you willing to spend.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I don't think there's any worth in anti-matter weaponry.
I'd rather leave it as the scifi buzzword it is.

Scifi buzzword,yes, but look at it: we can generate anti-matter and contain it. Building a bomb is only a question of how much money are you willing to spend.

People already complain about the absurd and sometimes obscene amount of money required to maintain a nuclear arsenal.
I'm not sure it will ever be cheap or simple enough to bother with anti-matter.

Especially since anti-matter is actively dangerous, more so than nuclear warheads spontaneously reaching critical mass, since containment must be maintained indefinitely until detonation. Warhead failure would result in an instant detonation.

[Big Jim P]

Scifi buzzword,yes, but look at it: we can generate anti-matter and contain it. Building a bomb is only a question of how much money are you willing to spend.

People already complain about the absurd and sometimes obscene amount of money required to maintain a nuclear arsenal.
I'm not sure it will ever be cheap or simple enough to bother with anti-matter.

Especially since anti-matter is actively dangerous, more so than nuclear warheads spontaneously reaching critical mass, since containment must be maintained indefinitely until detonation. Warhead failure would result in an instant detonation.

True. that is why I pointed out how much are you WILLING to pay.

[Puzikas]

If NS is anything to go on, Nuclear war will be the most efficient method of foreign policy.

[North America and the Great Lakes]

It depends on whether Iran makes good on it's claim to wipe Israel off the face of the planet.

Quick inventory:

Iran most likely has nukes, and they are our and Israel's sworn enemy. We have nukes and Israel has nukes, albiet with a star of David painted over the American flag on the missile. If Iran launches a nuclear strike against Israel, than Israel has all rights for fire back, therefore starting the war.

The international outcry would be the usual: Blame America. So Russia would rush to arms and maybe fire and attack on the US. WE would have to fire back, and North Korea would take the opportunity to take out Seoul and America given their missile could reach us.

So yes, it is possible. But this is a worst-case scenario.

[Great Nepal]

They wont be used for same reason there was no use of chemical weapon in Europe. It is fucking stupid and no nation is that stupid.

[Wisconsin9]

It depends on whether Iran makes good on it's claim to wipe Israel off the face of the planet.

Quick inventory:

Iran most likely has nukes, and they are our and Israel's sworn enemy. We have nukes and Israel has nukes, albiet with a star of David painted over the American flag on the missile. If Iran launches a nuclear strike against Israel, than Israel has all rights for fire back, therefore starting the war.

The international outcry would be the usual: Blame America. So Russia would rush to arms and maybe fire and attack on the US. WE would have to fire back, and North Korea would take the opportunity to take out Seoul and America given their missile could reach us.

So yes, it is possible. But this is a worst-case scenario.

Iran doesn't currently have nukes, and they're not the sworn enemy of America. Furthermore, Russia wouldn't launch on us. They realize that it's suicide, that's why nobody launched during the Cold War. For the same reason, North Korea wouldn't fire on us or Seoul.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

In case you haven't noticed, "they wouldn't dare" doesn't cover extremes of government or sufficiently-influential individuals.
Hence why guys with little more than homemade AKs and Russian anti-tank launchers are tying up billions of dollars thousands of miles away from your own country.