Nuclear War?

[The New Sea Territory]

I see nukes coming into play within the next 50 years. Someone is at least going to attempt to nuke someone else...

[Eimatam]

hello if anyone want to play eu3 co-op with me just invite me to skype: eimatam (invite both of them), so I'm waiting

[Great Nepal]

I see nukes coming into play within the next 50 years. Someone is at least going to attempt to nuke someone else...

Unless a insane two year old is given absolute control over nuclear power nation, not gona happen.

[Wisconsin9]

I see nukes coming into play within the next 50 years. Someone is at least going to attempt to nuke someone else...

Unless a insane two year old is given absolute control over nuclear power nation, not gona happen.

*camera pans over to a Tea Party rally*

[Tortopolis]

I see nukes coming into play within the next 50 years. Someone is at least going to attempt to nuke someone else...

Unless a insane two year old is given absolute control over nuclear power nation, not gona happen.

hhhmmmm........ Jeremy clarckson for US president anyone?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

You people seem to forget that individuals who may not share exactly the official position of their nation are in fact in control of vast swathes of a nation's arsenal. Subs and individual silo commanders, for one, can dupe, coerce or otherwise convince their men to launch their weapons without official authorisation.

[Vetalia]

If resource wars are in our future (which I doubt entirely, if anything I believe we're moving into a new period of abundance), I don't think nuclear war will be a part of it. Sort of destroys the point of invading a country for resources when the weapons you use render the importance of said resources irrelevant. Hell, even if you survive the only resources left to care about are the ones we needed during the Stone Age.

[The New Sea Territory]

I see nukes coming into play within the next 50 years. Someone is at least going to attempt to nuke someone else...

Unless a insane two year old is given absolute control over nuclear power nation, not gona happen.

Iran?

[The New Sea Territory]

Unless a insane two year old is given absolute control over nuclear power nation, not gona happen.

*camera pans over to a Tea Party rally*

*camera pans over the entire Middle East, and Comrade Obama stating "We need to back out now"*

[The Land of the Setting Sun]

You people seem to forget that individuals who may not share exactly the official position of their nation are in fact in control of vast swathes of a nation's arsenal. Subs and individual silo commanders, for one, can dupe, coerce or otherwise convince their men to launch their weapons without official authorisation.

I believe (and really want to believe) that it's not that easy to launch a nuclear strike.

[Divair]

I see nukes coming into play within the next 50 years. Someone is at least going to attempt to nuke someone else...

No. The peak of risk for nuclear war was in the 60's. It has gone down since then and will continue to go down for the foreseeable future.

[Wisconsin9]

*camera pans over to a Tea Party rally*

*camera pans over the entire Middle East, and Comrade Obama stating "We need to back out now"*

I don't really think an exchange in the Middle East would lead to a full-scale war. Even if it was Iran launching against Israel, there'd be no real reason to launch against America. As it is, Israel would have to spread maybe a hundred and fifty warheads across at least a dozen countries, this leaves relatively few weapons for each country and launching against the United States would only ensure their absolute destruction and occupation rather than maybe ten million dead. And that's assuming they'd even be able to build a delivery vehicle capable of hitting the United States.

[Rio Cana]

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

The Iranian leader never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the planet or map, Seems certain western news outlets made it seem he said that but he did not. In the end it seems the Iranian leader has no problem with Israel existing of course without the occupied territories.

Read this. It should clear up everything - http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2325

Another informative source - http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/6222/

Even Israel govt. sources admits he said nothing.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

You people seem to forget that individuals who may not share exactly the official position of their nation are in fact in control of vast swathes of a nation's arsenal. Subs and individual silo commanders, for one, can dupe, coerce or otherwise convince their men to launch their weapons without official authorisation.

I believe (and really want to believe) that it's not that easy to launch a nuclear strike.

In a Soviet missile silo, the approval of two Rocket Forces troops and two KGB agents was required to launch a missile.
On a sub, the Captain is supposed to confer with his senior staff after opening the sealed nuclear orders, who must also approve a strike.

In both situations, only two people are required to actually launch.

[Kalmarium]

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.

Actually I was talking about the Fallout games

[Arkiasis]

No, the world leaders know that launching a nuke would mean their nation being obliterated. No nation is stupid enough to launch a nuke. The only possibility I see of a nuclear launch is if terrorists managed to get a nuke and somehow got control of a nuclear launch facility, but even that's a long shot.

[Arkinesia]

I'd bet on Iran trying it... maybe... someday... possibly.

Iran? Nah. They may be crazy fundamentalists, but they have a good sense of self-preservation. Anymore, at least. I'd bet on India/Pakistan conflict, personally.

Yeah, India-Pakistan is the most likely nuclear scenario, and even that much isn't that likely.

[CTALNH]

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?

So a military ally gets attacked and you do nothing?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Iran? Nah. They may be crazy fundamentalists, but they have a good sense of self-preservation. Anymore, at least. I'd bet on India/Pakistan conflict, personally.

Yeah, India-Pakistan is the most likely nuclear scenario, and even that much isn't that likely.

Not to mention, that's probably unlikely to escalate beyond the regional skirmish that it ought to be. Both sides have incredibly limited medium-range arsenals and limited deployment methods.

[Caninope]

No. The idea of any state with enough firepower to threaten world stability declaring a nuclear conflict is, quite frankly, absurd.

Not necessarily. It's easy enough to declare a nuclear war, so long as your enemy cannot invoke MAD.

For instance, a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran in the near future would likely be limited. MAD couldn't be invoked, because of a lack of weapons. Nuclear weapons are only beneficial to peace if there are a lot of them.

And before you ask, yes I have been reading Meirsheimer.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Which book, Caninope? 'The Tragedy of Great Power Politics' (which I actually haven't finished yet)?

Anyway, wasn't it Kenneth Waltz who made that argument? He kind of had a change of heart about Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War ended; he used to think only the balance of power inherent to the International system was relevant to explaining the ascendancy of a peaceful international regime. Now he's all "give nukes to everyone".

[Caninope]

Which book, Caninope? 'The Tragedy of Great Power Politics' (which I actually haven't finished yet)?

Anyway, wasn't it Kenneth Waltz who made that argument? He kind of had a change of heart about Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War ended; he used to think only the balance of power inherent to the International system was relevant to explaining the ascendancy of a peaceful international regime. Now he's all "give nukes to everyone".

I recently had to read (or rather, re-read as I've glanced over it before) an opinion piece from 1990 by Meirsheimer recently for a class. It's called "Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War." It's worth noting that while pretty much every prediction made was wrong, that's what got me thinking about Meirsheimer's opinion on nuclear proliferation.

For those of you unfamiliar with Meirsheimer's work on nuclear weapons, Meirsheimer's fundamental argument (as the chief developer of the offensive realism school) is that states will work not just to make themselves secure, but to conquer and almost subjugate other states. Thus, Meirsheimer sees it as important that nuclear weapons proliferate in large number. He argues that mutually assured destruction is useless unless a nuclear state has a lot of them, and also argues that it is preferable to have a large number of nuclear states while we're at it.

Using Meirsheimer's (not entirely unfounded) argument, MAD only works so long as there are a lot of nukes. If (please note that this is a rather large assumption) a nuclear Iran or Israel could prevent the other nuclear states from launching out of fear of being the intended target, there could be a limited exchange. Thus chances of nuclear exchange are most likely when one state has nuclear weapons, followed by when both states have small numbers of nuclear weapons. The chance of nuclear war is virtually 0 when no state has nuclear weapons or when there are several states with lots of nuclear weapons.

[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?

So a military ally gets attacked and you do nothing?

Iran is not a military ally of Russia. They're just a buyer. And even if they were an ally, Russia would ignore them in favour of survival.

[Wisconsin9]

Which book, Caninope? 'The Tragedy of Great Power Politics' (which I actually haven't finished yet)?

Anyway, wasn't it Kenneth Waltz who made that argument? He kind of had a change of heart about Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War ended; he used to think only the balance of power inherent to the International system was relevant to explaining the ascendancy of a peaceful international regime. Now he's all "give nukes to everyone".

I recently had to read (or rather, re-read as I've glanced over it before) an opinion piece from 1990 by Meirsheimer recently for a class. It's called "Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War." It's worth noting that while pretty much every prediction made was wrong, that's what got me thinking about Meirsheimer's opinion on nuclear proliferation.

For those of you unfamiliar with Meirsheimer's work on nuclear weapons, Meirsheimer's fundamental argument (as the chief developer of the offensive realism school) is that states will work not just to make themselves secure, but to conquer and almost subjugate other states. Thus, Meirsheimer sees it as important that nuclear weapons proliferate in large number. He argues that mutually assured destruction is useless unless a nuclear state has a lot of them, and also argues that it is preferable to have a large number of nuclear states while we're at it.

Using Meirsheimer's (not entirely unfounded) argument, MAD only works so long as there are a lot of nukes. If (please note that this is a rather large assumption) a nuclear Iran or Israel could prevent the other nuclear states from launching out of fear of being the intended target, there could be a limited exchange. Thus chances of nuclear exchange are most likely when one state has nuclear weapons, followed by when both states have small numbers of nuclear weapons. The chance of nuclear war is virtually 0 when no state has nuclear weapons or when there are several states with lots of nuclear weapons.

He does have a point, though—the main reason the United States and Soviet Union didn't launch on each other was because it would have led to the deaths of tens of millions of their own. With only, say, a few dozen nukes on each side, then they'll need to prioritize on either counterforce strikes, destroying military bases and formations but leaving the manufacturing and potential recruits intact, or countervalue, destroying large manufacturing and population centers but leaving the military intact and still leaving more than enough of the cities intact to sustain a war effort.

[Caninope]

He does have a point, though—the main reason the United States and Soviet Union didn't launch on each other was because it would have led to the deaths of tens of millions of their own. With only, say, a few dozen nukes on each side, then they'll need to prioritize on either counterforce strikes, destroying military bases and formations but leaving the manufacturing and potential recruits intact, or countervalue, destroying large manufacturing and population centers but leaving the military intact and still leaving more than enough of the cities intact to sustain a war effort.

I know that. I was just pointing out that Ceann's assertion that nuclear states would never start a nuclear war (with the implied idea of MAD to support it) isn't necessarily true because mutual destruction isn't always assured.