World War III Prediction Thread

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Tbh I’m not super familiar with the operational status of their current arsenal, but IIRC they’re willing to launch their warheads in a similar vein as Russia, any massive assault on their sovereignty. So if Russia is on their doorstep then everyone is launching, no matter how many they have (the UK and US aren’t going to not retaliate).

Their Cold War stance was indeed to launch all out if the Russians crossed the Rhine as Paris realized at that point in the conflict it would be entirely likely for them to get overrun as the Soviets would be on the North European Plain with no real natural barriers and the French Army would likely be destroyed in Germany. The problem, however, is that the Anglo-French arsenals of the Cold War no longer exist. They both got rid of ICBMs and air-based weapons, beyond those possibly carried by the French carrier. Both supposedly maintain at least one SLBM-equipped submarine at sea at one time, but it's hard to say; the French only have three in total IIRC while the English have four, so it's questionable in my eyes if France really does maintain a deterrent.

As for the Americans, as De Gaulle and Khruschev once pondered, is New York worth Paris? In the Cold War, probably, as Washington knew the score if the Soviets overrun Western Europe and kept it. Nowadays, not so much, given the disparities in Russian and Soviet power as well as the changed strategic circumstances.

A bit O/T here, but are you familiar with Commisar Binkov on Youtube?

Tbh I’m more worried about the nuclear terrorist who isn’t smart enough to think of that to begin with.

Such things keep me up at night. When I first read about "Grey Goo" (Don't look it up), it was about a week before I could sleep again.

Too late, I'm already aware of the "Grey Goo", I stumbled upon it years ago and I had to cringe every time I thought of trillions of microscopic nanobots cosuming my precious organic bits,

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Same problem here. At least it will be over for me very quickly.

As long as you're in adequate shelter, at those distances you're more than safe.

"Safe"

[Oil exporting People]

Not really. World War means a war that takes place all over the World at the same time, not just various countries getting it on. The Crimean War involved Russia, France, and the UK, but it wasn't a World War in the sense that the UK and France probed Russian defenses, but they didn't prepare for an all out invasion. There was no objective to take Moscow and St. Petersburg. Prussia launched a series of wars, but the goal was to unify Germany, rather than conquer Europe; Bismarck was actually against the latter.

Fighting, besides in the Balkans and Caucasus and of course Ukraine, also occurred across the Pacific and even in the Baltic as the British probed Russian defenses around St. Petersburg. This was actually an event that led to the creation of Finnish Nationalism, oddly enough.

World War I had two giant coalitions with opposing goals, so that war was destined to happen. That's not the case today. First, the World's a lot more globalized, and second, the coalitions are focusing on local goals, rather than global domination. While the SCO might rule Central Asia, they're not interested, (or unable,) when it comes to expanding to Latin America. The Middle East is a clusterfuck, the East African Community knows their shit and can go toe to toe with others in their region, and so on.

The Globalization argument was made before WWI and its backers had useful statistics to point out, such as the fact Germany and France were the largest trading partners of each other. We saw how that turned out. More importantly, Globalization is ending and has been since 2008:

The growth of trade among nations is among the most consequential and controversial economic developments of recent decades. Yet despite the noisy debates, which have reached new heights during this presidential campaign, it is a little-noticed fact that trade is no longer rising. The volume of global trade was flat in the first quarter of 2016, then fell by 0.8 percent in the second quarter, according to statisticians in the Netherlands, which happens to keep the best data.

The United States is no exception to the broader trend. The total value of American imports and exports fell by more than $200 billion last year. Through the first nine months of 2016, trade fell by an additional $470 billion.

It is the first time since World War II that trade with other nations has declined during a period of economic growth.

Sluggish global economic growth is both a cause and a result of the slowdown. In better times, prosperity increased trade and trade increased prosperity. Now the wheel is turning in the opposite direction. Reduced consumption and investment are dragging on trade, which is slowing growth.

But there are also signs that the slowdown is becoming structural. Developed nations appear to be backing away from globalization.

The World Trade Organization’s most recent round of global trade talks ended in failure last year. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, an attempt to forge a regional agreement among Pacific Rim nations, also is foundering. It is opposed by both major-party American presidential candidates. Meanwhile, new barriers are rising. Britain is leaving the European Union. The World Trade Organization said in July that its members had put in place more than 2,100 new restrictions on trade since 2008.

“Curbing free trade would be stalling an engine that has brought unprecedented welfare gains around the world over many decades,” Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, wrote in a recent call for nations to renew their commitment to trade.

Against the tide, the European Union and Canada signed a new trade deal on Sunday.

It may be hard, however, to muster public enthusiasm in the United States and other developed nations. The benefits of globalization have accrued disproportionately to the wealthy, while the costs have fallen on displaced workers, and governments have failed to ease their pain.


The Walmart revolution is over. During the 1990s, global trade grew more than twice as fast as the global economy. Europe united. China became a factory town. Tariffs came down. Transportation costs plummeted. It was the Walmart Era.

But those changes have played out. Europe is fraying around the edges; low tariffs and transportation costs cannot get much lower. And China’s role in the global economy is changing. The country is making more of what it consumes, and consuming more of what it makes. In addition, China’s maturing industrial sector increasingly makes its own parts. The International Monetary Fund reported last year that the share of imported components in products “Made in China” has fallen to 35 percent from 60 percent in the 1990s.

The result: The I.M.F. study calculated that a 1 percent increase in global growth increased trade volumes by 2.5 percent in the 1990s, while in recent years, the same growth has increased trade by just 0.7 percent.

Hanjin, like other big shipping companies, bet that global trade would continue to expand rapidly. In 2009, the world’s cargo lines had enough room to carry 12.1 million of the standardized shipping containers that have played a crucial, if quiet, role in the rise of global trade. By last year, they had room for 19.9 million — much of it unneeded.

India is not China redux. Most trade flows among developed nations. The McKinsey Global Institute calculates that 15 countries account for roughly 63 percent of the global traffic in goods and services, and for an even larger share of financial investment.

China joined this club the old-fashioned way: It used factories to build a middle class. But the automation of factory work is making it harder for other nations to follow. Dani Rodrik, a Harvard economist, calculates that manufacturing employment in India and other developing nations has already peaked, a phenomenon he calls premature deindustrialization.

The weakness of the global economy is exacerbating the trend. Infrastructure investment by multinational corporations declined for the third straight year in 2015, according to the United Nations. It predicts a further decline this year. But even if growth rebounds, automation reduces the incentives to invest in the low-labor-cost developing world, and it reduces the benefits of such investments for the residents of developing countries.

Furthermore, there is no one country that has the power of Napoleonic France, and there are no coalitions that could reach the power of the Entente. And even if those existed, there are no barriers to them. The World stood by as the US invaded Iraq for shits and giggles. There is no block that could actually attack NATO or SCO countries. Furthermore, with modern advances in PR and missile warfare, the attacker is the likely loser, unless a technological disparity exists.

The World stood by because the U.S. has 25% of the Globe's GDP and military that, at least then, could take on any competitors and destroy them utterly. The reason for a lack of a World War in recent times was that, in the Cold War, there was no ability to fight a conflict without a high degree risk of it turning bad and lower cost alternatives being available. Since then, the only nation with the ability to be aggressive is the United States. No one else has the economic and military power to do so.

Missile technology is not to be trifled with.

You're putting way too much faith into that.

[Oil exporting People]

As long as you're in adequate shelter, at those distances you're more than safe.

That’s mildly comforting to know.The first instance of war, anywhere I am going to get the heck out of there. I know my place is a perfect spot for the east.

Not trying to be cavalier, but people hear nuclear war and freak the fuck out. It'd be a horrible tragedy but the idea you're automatically doomed to die just isn't true.

[Oil exporting People]

A bit O/T here, but are you familiar with Commisar Binkov on Youtube?

Don't worry this is relevant and yes, I am but I don't watch it.

Too late, I'm already aware of the "Grey Goo", I stumbled upon it years ago and I had to cringe every time I thought of trillions of microscopic nanobots cosuming my precious organic bits

It's a morbid fascination of mine, but I've always liked disaster movies so I've always had a passive interest in looking up potential catastrophes. This, however, has the unfortunate side effect of giving me insomnia when I consider the very real possibilities out there.

Current thought: Nuclear weapons used to generate a Hypercane

[Major-Tom]

In the foreseeable future, that is, the next several decades, my concerns have more to do with climate change and instability in a handful of countries other than the very, very hypothetical scenario of a "WW3."

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

A bit O/T here, but are you familiar with Commisar Binkov on Youtube?

Don't worry this is relevant and yes, I am but I don't watch it.

I would highly recommend his stuff to someone like you, he has a lot of well researched and analytical hypothetical video scenarios involving war between various world and regional powers. You'll definitely find his Cold War USSR v. NATO and Russia v. EU videos very interesting.

Too late, I'm already aware of the "Grey Goo", I stumbled upon it years ago and I had to cringe every time I thought of trillions of microscopic nanobots cosuming my precious organic bits

It's a morbid fascination of mine, but I've always liked disaster movies so I've always had a passive interest in looking up potential catastrophes. This, however, has the unfortunate side effect of giving me insomnia when I consider the very real possibilities out there.

Current thought: Nuclear weapons used to generate a Hypercane

I have had the same interest, I'm always interested in learning about various hypothetical apocalyptic scenarios that could bring down society and the human species in general. I've had a particular "fascination" of sorts with viral outbreaks that lead to a sort of next stage of human evolution (think I Am Legend and the morals behind the Darkseekers) lately.

[Abyssal Shipyard]

Not while we still live in clown world. Shekels > all here. Even if we did have one, you would still have a shitshow that gets shekels into certain pockets,

[The Sakhalinsk Empire]

Personally, I think that while there is quite a bit of conflict escalating, it wouldn't blow up into WW3 until maybe 50 or so years in the future.

[Oil exporting People]

I would highly recommend his stuff to someone like you, he has a lot of well researched and analytical hypothetical video scenarios involving war between various world and regional powers. You'll definitely find his Cold War USSR v. NATO and Russia v. EU videos very interesting.

I've seen some, I just personally don't think he does a good job overall. For one example, from what I recall of Cold War planning, BAOR planned an immediate fallback once hostiles started while the Western Germans planned to fight on the border....which means said West Germans would get encircled and BAOR suddenly finds itself effectively alone, sans the Dutch, on the North European Plain facing the Soviets. Neither side planned first use of nuclear weapons, from what I can tell, either; at least that is the assessment of the CIA back in the 1980s according to declassified documents.

For the U.S. vs China match up, one third to 40% of Chinese training is political indoctrination, they have no unified military command structure (to prevent coups against the party) like every other major military power, and their equipment costs for a soldier is about $2,000 with about half that in their firearm vs $20,000 for American soldiers. Oh, and the U.S. could immediately eliminate something like 35% of Chinese GDP. Between economic collapse and the fact the Chinese military is poorly trained, equipped, led and hasn't seen actual combat since 1979 beyond firing on its own people, the U.S. would wipe the floor with it even in its current state. About the only weapon it has to give the U.S. pause is the Dong Feng missiles, but to an extent I see those as over-hyped; we've had AEGIS for exactly this reason since the 1980s.

I have had the same interest, I'm always interested in learning about various hypothetical apocalyptic scenarios that could bring down society and the human species in general. I've had a particular "fascination" of sorts with viral outbreaks that lead to a sort of next stage of human evolution (think I Am Legend and the morals behind the Darkseekers) lately.

Those things especially fuck with me. I generally limit myself to the "mundane" in terms of human caused things (nuclear war, economic collapse, etc) and natural (The Day After Tomorrow, etc).

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Who needs bombs and missiles when you can destroy infrastructure with hacking.

[The Frozen Forest]

1. You can only attack a military target so many times before its just a pile of rubble. ... In the event of a nuclear war, what would prevent Russia. China or the United States from attacking cities?

Nuclear stockpiles are not infinite, they are finite. The current nuclear stockpile of Russia would barely cover the necessary military targets in the USA and Europe. They simply do not have the warheads to spare to conduct a widespread assault on civilian targets.

2. Fallout would not be limited because of the fact that a significant portion of the worlds nuclear stockpile are older remnants of the Cold War. These weapons are ground burst, not air burst.

Now you are talking complete nonsense, and displaying your clear lack of knowledge regarding nuclear weapons. Airburst weapons have been around for the vast majority of the Cold War, and Minuteman III and all of the equivalent weapons in the Russian arsenal have airburst capability. It is far more efficient to use airbursts. Ground bursts would be limited to hardened targets like C3 facilities and silos. The vast majority of targets would be hit by airburst weapons, which produce very limited fallout.

3. Take it as you will. Forming your own conclusions in addition to actual research is important. With so much material relating to the effects of nuclear war, its conclusive what the results would be.

It isn't conclusive at all. The quantities of ash thrown into the atmosphere is up for debate, as is its long term effects.

5. If you base your convictions on the belief that you will survive, then your resolve has a higher chance of faltering. You will be hit harder when things feel hopeless.

Your attitude was far more defeatist than that though. You had death for everyone as an absolute result of nuclear war, when it really isn't.

6. The United States alone has over 400 Minutemen-III warheads in its stockpile. These date back forty years and would cause a nuclear winter if deployed.

That nonsensical hyperbole needs a source.

7. Fallout Shelters are a joke because they can't be moved around for the most part, its an inflexible strategy.

I really don't see how their lack of mobility is a weakness. Methinks that you are desperately picking at straws, now that you have implicitly admitted that fallout shelters do protect from fallout, contrary to your assertion earlier.

I have had to heavily truncate your posts for brevity's sake.

1. Thats a given but doesn't change the concept of diminishing returns. At what point is a military facility no longer worth the same as a warhead? Russia will not be releasing even 75% of its stockpile just on military targets, especially since the "benefits" of wiping out infrastructure and manufacturing hubs like cities can easily knock out a countries ability to fight back. Its naive to think that civilian centers wouldn't be targeted in the event of a nuclear war. It fact, arguably it would be nonsensical since you're only ripping out the metaphorical creatures teeth, which it will regrow in some capacity as long as the rest of its body is still intact. States today understand that in the event of a nuclear war, you have to kick your enemies so hard that they can't get up again and recover. Even if Russia and the United States were to only attack military targets, which is questionable at best, China would certainly attack population centers. China has 260 Warheads, more than enough to wrought devastation on the planet just by itself.

2. Fallout is produced from any kind of nuclear warhead, even those that are air bursted. This is widely agreed upon, though i'll concede that there is less fallout than with a ground bursting warhead. Less does not imply that there is none however, as even air bursted warheads produce significant amounts of fallout. In Radionuclide Fractionation in Air-Burst Debris by E. C. Freiling and M. A. Kay, i quote "When one considers world-wide fallout, air bursts are of much greater significance than surface bursts for two reasons. First, because a much greater quantity of fission products has been produced by air bursts than by surface detonations and secondly, because the entire amount of debris from an air burst goes into world-wide fallout, as compared to some small but unknown fraction for a surface burst." So i'm not discourteous, here is a link to the aforementioned work so you can read for yourself.

Additionally the bomb dropped on HIroshima was air bursting, thus i refer to This study from AGU 100. "We present the first study of the global impacts of a regional nuclear war with an Earth system model including atmospheric chemistry, ocean dynamics, and interactive sea ice and land components. A limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which each side detonates 50 15 kt weapons could produce about 5 Tg of black carbon (BC). This would self‐loft to the stratosphere, where it would spread globally, producing a sudden drop in surface temperatures and intense heating of the stratosphere. Using the Community Earth System Model with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model, we calculate an e‐folding time of 8.7 years for stratospheric BC compared to 4–6.5 years for previous studies. Our calculations show that global ozone losses of 20%–50% over populated areas, levels unprecedented in human history, would accompany the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years. We calculate summer enhancements in UV indices of 30%–80% over midlatitudes, suggesting widespread damage to human health, agriculture, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Killing frosts would reduce growing seasons by 10–40 days per year for 5 years. Surface temperatures would be reduced for more than 25 years due to thermal inertia and albedo effects in the ocean and expanded sea ice. The combined cooling and enhanced UV would put significant pressures on global food supplies and could trigger a global nuclear famine. Knowledge of the impacts of 100 small nuclear weapons should motivate the elimination of more than 17,000 nuclear weapons that exist today."

3. Omitting #3 since it is answered in #2.

4. You skipped over #4

5. Well, for the most part it will probably be death for everyone. Again, you have to accept that its more likely we will go extinct than that we wouldn't. Thats not defeatist, thats a motivating factor to prove me and yourself wrong (if you take that mental attitude.) Focusing on your core needs at any moment is the result of realizing and understanding your situation. If you believe that you will survive, then when you're suffering from an injury or disease, its going to hit you much harder when you realize your going to die. If there is an EMP (non-nuclear, natural EMP) then you probably won't die, in that case understanding that things will eventually get better is more beneficial than accepting that you would die. However, the conditions you would face after a nuclear war would be horrible. I would rather live in a fallout-inspired world than one actually ravaged by nuclear armageddon. If we are faced with it. then its better to accept that we will die, because moving your mental attitude to that level will help you focus purely on surviving until the next day, rather than the crisis itself. They also will feel more motivated to continue on when they reach hardships, because even if they die, they will still have put forth their best effort towards preventing that inevitable fate.

6. Refer back to aforementioned studies, that isn't to mention that Minutemen-III's are much heavier and have higher payloads than Hiroshima sized weapons (naturally).

7. How am i picking at straws? Its a weakness because it doesn't allow you to move around in order to obtain new supplies. I mentioned how animals would die off earlier. If you're located far away from where surviving animals may have fled to, then you won't be able to access them as a form of nutrition. If you're close to the city, you'll have to deal with marauding groups of starving survivors, but if you're deep in the woods you won't have access to the tools you might need in case someone in your shelter is damaged or broken. Not to mention that you probably have most of your supplies tied to the bunker so that if you're forced to flee, you will be leaving behind nearly all of your preps. Moving around will kill you, staying put will kill you. The environment will kill you, one way or another.

That is unless you're in Switzerland (and possibly other mountain based countries), which i am now aware has made adequate preparation for a nuclear war. They will probably still end up dying, but they have better odds than anyone in the States.

[Knockturn Alley]

That's a good question, the world wont ignite at any particular point in time if that's what you mean. There will however be a gradual erosion of trust between nations, of trust between the people and their government, and lawlessness will take over. It wont be a war with guns firing at each other or planes dropping bombs, it will be a war against apathy and anarchy.

Throughout history there has been a recurring pattern in the fall of democracy. An authoritarian government has always been preceded by a corrupt liberal government. "The ruling elites (bourgeoisie) are corrupt, amoral and exploiting the working class (proletariat)" This was the basis of Marxism. "The corrupt Jews don't care about the fatherland and lost us the great war" This was the basis of National Socialism. We are at a point again where corrupt liberal governments are losing to right wing governments, some of them authoritarian. It happened in Philippines with Duterte, in Brazil with Bolsanaro, even in Denmark. Only this time the game has changed. Right Wing Authoritarianism is not sustainable in Western Civilization because of increasing multiculturalism and diversity in population. So after the current wave of populism is over (which I see as a death rattle of right leaning values like capitalism and conservatism) there will be a time of dangerous Socialism which will wage full-fledged war against the wealthy. The people will win as they always do, but now what? There will be no economy without the wealthy and eventually this will lead to the circumstances I explained at the beginning. Western Civilization will collapse if they go down their current road and isolated, authoritarian regimes like China, Saudi Arabia and Russia will seize power.

[Greater Galactic Protectorate]

My prediction of WW3 would be due to Switzerland:

1. Switzerland becoming more and more influenced by China.
2. Germany would have none of it.
3. U.K. shared the same sentiments with Germany but was not on the same side due to no longer within E.U..
4. U.S.A stepped in and wanted Switzerland as is, without E.U.'s direct influences.
5. Lastly, Russia also comes in because the more the merrier.

So, it'll be: U.S.A and U.K vs Germany vs China and Russia

[Infected Mushroom]

That's a good question, the world wont ignite at any particular point in time if that's what you mean. There will however be a gradual erosion of trust between nations, of trust between the people and their government, and lawlessness will take over. It wont be a war with guns firing at each other or planes dropping bombs, it will be a war against apathy and anarchy.

Throughout history there has been a recurring pattern in the fall of democracy. An authoritarian government has always been preceded by a corrupt liberal government. "The ruling elites (bourgeoisie) are corrupt, amoral and exploiting the working class (proletariat)" This was the basis of Marxism. "The corrupt Jews don't care about the fatherland and lost us the great war" This was the basis of National Socialism. We are at a point again where corrupt liberal governments are losing to right wing governments, some of them authoritarian. It happened in Philippines with Duterte, in Brazil with Bolsanaro, even in Denmark. Only this time the game has changed. Right Wing Authoritarianism is not sustainable in Western Civilization because of increasing multiculturism and diversity in population. So after the current wave of populism is over (which I see as a death rattle of right leaning values like capitalism and conservatism) there will be a time of dangerous Socialism which will wage full-fledged war against the wealthy. The people will win as they always do, but now what? There will be no economy without the wealthy and eventually this will lead to the circumstances I explained at the beginning. Western Civilization will collapse if they go down their current road and isolated, authoritarian regimes like China, Saudi Arabia and Russia will seize power.

so you're saying the West will self-destruct because large ignorant masses will protest, rebel, and start a civil war (against the rich) and completely bring down their own governments... paving the way for the rise of China and Mother Russia?

[Knockturn Alley]

That's a good question, the world wont ignite at any particular point in time if that's what you mean. There will however be a gradual erosion of trust between nations, of trust between the people and their government, and lawlessness will take over. It wont be a war with guns firing at each other or planes dropping bombs, it will be a war against apathy and anarchy.

Throughout history there has been a recurring pattern in the fall of democracy. An authoritarian government has always been preceded by a corrupt liberal government. "The ruling elites (bourgeoisie) are corrupt, amoral and exploiting the working class (proletariat)" This was the basis of Marxism. "The corrupt Jews don't care about the fatherland and lost us the great war" This was the basis of National Socialism. We are at a point again where corrupt liberal governments are losing to right wing governments, some of them authoritarian. It happened in Philippines with Duterte, in Brazil with Bolsanaro, even in Denmark. Only this time the game has changed. Right Wing Authoritarianism is not sustainable in Western Civilization because of increasing multiculturism and diversity in population. So after the current wave of populism is over (which I see as a death rattle of right leaning values like capitalism and conservatism) there will be a time of dangerous Socialism which will wage full-fledged war against the wealthy. The people will win as they always do, but now what? There will be no economy without the wealthy and eventually this will lead to the circumstances I explained at the beginning. Western Civilization will collapse if they go down their current road and isolated, authoritarian regimes like China, Saudi Arabia and Russia will seize power.

so you're saying the West will self-destruct because large ignorant masses will protest, rebel, and start a civil war (against the rich) and completely bring down their own governments... paving the way for the rise of China and Mother Russia?

In a nutshell yes

[Infected Mushroom]

so you're saying the West will self-destruct because large ignorant masses will protest, rebel, and start a civil war (against the rich) and completely bring down their own governments... paving the way for the rise of China and Mother Russia?

In a nutshell yes

then this seems to confirm my suspicions about the true nature of democracy

[The New California Republic]

Actually I am accounting for it, but I'm also accounting for MIRV technology having kept pace as well, including the use of (as I have said) multiple sophisticated decoys included in each MIRV bus with jammers and chaff, which would exponentially multiply the number of targets from around 1,600 warheads to tens or even hundreds of thousands of targets. The targeting screens for any ABM system would become a clusterfuck of false and ghosted targets. The Russians have also been hardening the MIRV bus and each warhead against radiation and heat, making them much harder to kill with nuclear-tipped ABM systems. We are rapidly approaching an age whereby nothing short of a direct hit or a near miss from a nuclear-tipped ABM will be sufficient to kill them, and will warrant higher and higher yields on the warheads of the ABM system for them to remain effective, possibly to a point that becomes unjustifiable.

..and nuclear tipped missiles account for that in response.

You clearly didn't read what I said.

[Phoenicaea]

..China, as most influent state..and Nigeria as part of the dispute..because I feel it (may be lectures, perhaps 'heart of darkness' -for jungle, and erodotus -the immense empire, China)

*something as, China against Franco-British about Nigeria, west tropical Africa and Antartica-Canadian heights.

[Painisia]

Well, I think it is impossible to be a guru who can predict every incident that will take place in the future, but a large-scale war might take place. I imagine the players of this grandiose war like this:


The Nationalist Movement vs. The Global Liberal Cosmopolitanists

China/Russia (Taken over either by NazBols or Ultra-Nationalist Groups) vs. NATO. If The US continues its semi-autarky protectionist line, they might not give a damn about a war in Eurasia.

India vs. Pakistan. Oh boy

Small extremist splinter groups (Either Islamic or etc) vs. The rest of the world

China vs. USA and NATO. The tensions in the South China Sea might spark a large-scale war, but I think the American and Chinese military officers are more keen to dialogue than a Tzar Bomba

[The New California Republic]

Thats a given but doesn't change the concept of diminishing returns. At what point is a military facility no longer worth the same as a warhead? Russia will not be releasing even 75% of its stockpile just on military targets, especially since the "benefits" of wiping out infrastructure and manufacturing hubs like cities can easily knock out a countries ability to fight back. Its naive to think that civilian centers wouldn't be targeted in the event of a nuclear war.

I never said that they wouldn't be targeted, I said that 75% of the targets will be military or military-related. You just aren't listening to what I'm saying, and it's causing you to spin in circles for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The priority is on taking out time-critical targets. Time-critical targets like C3 facilities, airbases, navy bases, and missile silos are the very top of the list. Next are other associated military bases that do not have a nuclear capability. Next are sites associated with the military-industrial complex. Next are other industrial facilities that can be used for military purposes. Right at the bottom of the list are population centers, because, I'm afraid to say, in the grand scheme of things we really aren't that important except as a counter-value target.

---

Fallout is produced from any kind of nuclear warhead, even those that are air bursted. This is widely agreed upon, though i'll concede that there is less fallout than with a ground bursting warhead. Less does not imply that there is none however, as even air bursted warheads produce significant amounts of fallout.

Again, I never said that fallout wouldn't happen in the case of an airburst, I said that it would be limited in the event of one. You are getting to the cusp of strawmanning me at this point. Also:

In the case of airbursts, the fireball would carry this radioactivity into the upper atmosphere, from which it would slowly filter down as a rather diffuse distribution called "global fallout" over a period of months to years. In the case of an attack on so-called "hard" targets such as missile silos, which can withstand high overpressures, the nuclear weapons would have to be exploded so close to the ground that surface material would be sucked into the fireball, mixed with the vaporized bomb products, and carried by the buoyancy of the fireball into the upper atmosphere. There, much of the bomb material and surface material would condense into particles, a large fraction of which would descend to the surface again within 24 hours in an intense swath of "local fallout" downwind from the target.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219165/

In addition:

---

Additionally the bomb dropped on HIroshima was air bursting, thus i refer to This study from AGU 100.

Again, the fallout is very different, which is the point I have been hammering all along:

Global fallout
After the detonation of a weapon at or above the fallout-free altitude (an air burst), fission products, un-fissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues vaporized by the heat of the fireball condense into a suspension of particles 10 nm to 20 µm in diameter. This size of particulate matter, lifted to the stratosphere, may take months or years to settle, and may do so anywhere in the world. Its radioactive characteristics increase the statistical cancer risk. Elevated atmospheric radioactivity remains measurable after the widespread nuclear testing of the 1950s.

Local fallout
During the detonations of device at ground level (surface burst), below the fallout-free altitude, or in shallow water, heat vaporizes large amounts of earth or water, which is drawn up into the radioactive cloud. This material becomes radioactive when it condenses with fission products and other radiocontaminants and becomes neutron-activated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_f ... of_fallout

---

Well, for the most part it will probably be death for everyone.

There is no evidence to say that would be the case. Completely unnecessary hyperbole.

---

How am i picking at straws? Its a weakness because it doesn't allow you to move around in order to obtain new supplies.

Fallout shelters are only meant to offer protection for short to medium periods. They aren't meant to offer some magical shield against any post-war ills of the world. Do you know what it would take to make a mobile fallout shelter? Do you? It is quite frankly ridiculous that you are pushing this point.

I have had to heavily truncate your replies again. Please limit your responses for brevity's sake, otherwise I am forced to extensively cut them to ribbons in order to make the flow of the discussion even at least partially comprehensible to people just joining the discussion, rather than being hit with a wall of text.

[The New California Republic]

Which one?

Moody afb

You'd be fine in a shelter. At 20 miles from the detonation you would be well outside the 5 psi blast area needed to level most buildings: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt ... erm=&zm=12

[Knockturn Alley]

In a nutshell yes

then this seems to confirm my suspicions about the true nature of democracy

What were your suspicions?

[Infected Mushroom]

then this seems to confirm my suspicions about the true nature of democracy

What were your suspicions?

That it was on some sort of path to self destruction

[The New California Republic]

What were your suspicions?

That it was on some sort of path to self destruction

Systems rise and fall. It is a general truth, it isn't specific to democracy.