"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.
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.
Irrelevant. The dictator is the highest authority in any autocracy. The other people in power only have power because they are diehard supporters. The rest of the populace is kept out of the loop completely by the strict policing of media and vast propaganda campaigns.
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.
Which is missing the point entirely. Understanding that something is bad is not the same as being capable of preventing its occurrence. Making one unadvisable decision or ill-conceived plan out of several thousand per day is not the same as being a helpeless idiot.
3. Didn't get you there.
The question: "What would trigger nuclear war?" My answer: "Pure unmitigated incompetence on the part of one or more political leaders"
Nuclear warfare is not the product of sound judgement. Any political leader who brings about such a war cannot be a competent political leader. Therefore, a lack of competence is required for the occurrence of such a war.
Or the picture on the link was edited.
The Onion is a satirical newspaper. It isn't meant to be taken seriously.
soo, i'm not the only 1 laughing when people come with "nuclear weapons!!" in a chat about... uhmm i dont know... usa vs canada in a head on war.. or something like that...
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
Ikr? Thank god they listened to Matt Damon and averted the crisis.
