"I suddenly felt the need to ask and hope someone with knowledge answers. What are the catalysts for nuclear war between countries? Would losing in a conventional war cause a country to use nukes? Does it make any sense to completely destroy ones own country and the aggressors country because of a lost war? It is kinda like a Mike Tyson killing Evander Holyfield then commiting suicide because he lost the match instead of biting a piece of his ear off. It does not make any sense. Would just a few nukes be used instead of an all out assault to bring the war to an end? A few nukes would probably make the world stop warring because of the catastrophic effect of just a few would kinda waken people up to the realities of it.
What I really want to know is what is the failsafes an strategies among the wise of the leaders of the countries with nuclear weapons. It can't really be my way or the highway in all armed countries can it? Or is conventional warfare still feasible among nuclear armed nations. Are they humane enough to let conventional warfare play out? Would any nation accept defeat and not use them despite having them for the sake of life?"
-Stolen from another forum (Gyo01) for the sole purpose of discussion.
Perhaps some form of aggression in the Kashmir territory between Iran and India? Both have weapons of mass destruction ready to obliterate each other over that area, and tensions are continuing to rise.
I can't imagine Putin using weapons of mass destruction, despite defying the United Nations, even if the USA has a president with weak-foreign policy in the future.
I do think conventional warfare will play out because with weapons of mass destruction and the quantity and technology we have today, there would be no more land to fight for nor land to go home to (if you're alive).
People don't understand that a nuclear weapon is quite possibly the most useless weapon in modern warfare. That is, simply because the amount of destruction modern nukes can cause is massive.
As long as both sides have nukes, they cannot use them, simply because of the fear of retaliation. For example, even in a war between USA and all of its allies against Russia, while the nuclear missiles possessed by the one side are a lot more than those possesssed by the other, who would dare fire them? Russia definitely wouldn't, simply because of the smaller amount of nuclear weapons, while NATO also wouldn't simply to avoid retaliation, even if said retaliation causes much less damage.
A nuclear weapon today is only for show. Even if one of the sides doesn't possess nuclear weapons, the other side (the one which has) would probably have no reason to use them.
Also, nukes, like everything, have an expiration date. After that, they hold much less destructive force. But safely dumping a nuke is a very costly procedure. So, the top military forces in the world, are engaged in a never ending cycle of producing nukes (it may be for the show, but the show's power cannot be underestimated) while also storing the expired ones, constantly looking for an opportunity to launch them. So, as you can see, building and maintaining a nuclear arsenal is very costly and not so efficient.
You know what is a real weapon in modern warfare? Something that causes economical and social collapse. It is why Banks hold so much power in Capitalism.
So long story short, it is almost impossible to trigger nuclear warfare today in my opinion.
Nope, I don't think that's the case @xerox . They just can't do otherwise. They obviously cannot fire them, aside from violating major international treaties, it is the fear of retaliation that prevents them from using nuclear weapons. That's what I think at least.
Pure unmitigated incompetence on the part of one or more political leaders' should cover just about every possible scenario
I don't believe the way countries are run these days that a minority of stupidity can take such actions, you need approval from too many people. You could probably find a lot of corruption up top, but I don't believe there's too much stupidity.
Besides, stupid people usually don't try to rush actions. They'd rather sit back and do nothing. That's the only way no one would notice their incompetence.
You know what is a real weapon in modern warfare? Something that causes economical and social collapse. It is why Banks hold so much power in Capitalism.
So true. Our world's substance is getting more and more complicated and relies on more and more functional parts. Cut the power, you get chaos; same with Roads, imports, internet, satellites, safe streets, safe food/water, stable banks, etc. To void useless expenses, we rely on them completely with little alternative. Take 2 or 3 of these things away from a modern country and watch it burn itself.
So long story short, it is almost impossible to trigger nuclear warfare today in my opinion.
Maybe, but the situation doesn't balance itself on nothing. What I mean is, if a country is pushed to a corner stuff would get dangerous. So people wouldn't push that country to the corner. But that country is smart, and she knows this, so she can do destructive sh*t without being afraid to be pushed to the corner.
(hence Iran is an issue)
Perhaps some form of aggression in the Kashmir territory between Iran and India?
Your thinking Pakistan, not Iran. Or Pakistan+China (vs India) to be more exact.
I don't believe the way countries are run these days that a minority of stupidity can take such actions, you need approval from too many people. You could probably find a lot of corruption up top, but I don't believe there's too much stupidity.
Besides, stupid people usually don't try to rush actions. They'd rather sit back and do nothing. That's the only way no one would notice their incompetence
I'm pretty.sure you wildly misinterpreted that.
-----
I think not listening to Matt Damon's words of advice might cause it.
One disturbingly likely cause of global thermonuclear war is malfunctioning hardware and/or software in missile detection systems.
A few years back Russia almost retaliated to a false positive indicating the US had launched missiles at them. Fortunately, that did not come to pass, but it was dangerously close. I have no reason to believe that systems have become significantly more reliable since then or that calmer heads will prevail if such a situation arises again.
You guys are really stressing yourself too hard then. Everyone uses calm heads when it comes to ending the world as we know it. If any nuke will ever go offit wouldnt be out of the blue. If the Cuba crisis didnt blow up, no pitty tenssions today will.
Well you see it would require a very bored U.S President. Imagine being really bored in the Oval Office and in front of you is a big red button that says "Do Not Push".
I don't believe the way countries are run these days that a minority of stupidity can take such actions, you need approval from too many people. You could probably find a lot of corruption up top, but I don't believe there's too much stupidity.
1 Not every present-day country is a well-organized first-world country.
2 Competence ≠ Intelligence.
3 A nuclear war arising by any other means would be exceedingly unlikely in comparison.
Besides, stupid people usually don't try to rush actions. They'd rather sit back and do nothing. That's the only way no one would notice their incompetence.
Laziness ≠ Stupidity.
A few years back Russia almost retaliated to a false positive indicating the US had launched missiles at them. Fortunately, that did not come to pass, but it was dangerously close. I have no reason to believe that systems have become significantly more reliable since then or that calmer heads will prevail if such a situation arises again.
The advent of the interceptor missile should alleviate at least part of that threat.
You guys are really stressing yourself too hard then. Everyone uses calm heads when it comes to ending the world as we know it.
You should not assume that everyone is reasonably sane, non-sociopathic, not indoctrinated with thought-stifling propaganda, and aware that M.A.D. applies to them in a real sense. Also, people in positions of very high authority aren't generally competent in their roles, either because they have herculean responsibilities, or because the most competent candidates are too inconspicuous/unpopular to be given a chance.
Imagine being really bored in the Oval Office and in front of you is a big red button that says "Do Not Push".
It's actually a telephone, and it doesn't even have an automated service.
@MattEmAngel you are right when it comes to religious fanatics and terrorists but acquiring a nuclear weapon is no simple matter. It would require months of planning, training, lots of equipment from forces that are totally decentralized.
Even if a nuke is somehow acquired by a terrorist organization, aside from the fact that the military force that owned the nuke will probably spare no expense in getting it back, the terrorist organization would also have to plan the delivery of the nuke, which is another time consuming and costly operation.
And to top it all, this thread is about triggering nuclear war. A terror cell acquiring and even successfully delivering said nuke does not mean a total war with nuclear weapons involved, no matter how dangerous the detonation of this weapon may be.
Like I said before, thermonuclear war requires a lot of conditions, some of which cannot be or have a very small chance to be met in the present scenario.
1 Not every present-day country is a well-organized first-world country.
2 Competence ≠ Intelligence.
3 A nuclear war arising by any other means would be exceedingly unlikely in comparison.
Laziness ≠ Stupidity.
1. That's why its dangerous allowing these sort of countries to have any, but even those ones are run by a complex system of leadership and politics. Even in N.Korea the dictator isn't completely the sole mind in power.
2. I think they have a lot to do with each other. Someone who fails to see how nuclear war is a bad option will probably fail other things too.
3. Didn't get you there.
You should not assume that everyone is reasonably sane, non-sociopathic, not indoctrinated with thought-stifling propaganda, and aware that M.A.D. applies to them in a real sense. Also, people in positions of very high authority aren't generally competent in their roles, either because they have herculean responsibilities, or because the most competent candidates are too inconspicuous/unpopular to be given a chance.
Still can't give that scenario even in the shady countries a real chance. Wether they are villains want money, expansion, power, security, respect or anything else, they will know a nuclear war is bad for them. Someone more stupid then that will find himself a someone's puppet, out or dead in any regime.
