Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Probability of nuclear war

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

Likelyhood of nuclear exchange within 30 years ?

Less than 10 %
23
28%
10-20%
6
7%
20-30%
5
6%
30-40%
5
6%
40-50%
9
11%
50-60%
8
10%
60-70%
8
10%
70-80%
3
4%
80-90%
2
2%
over 90%
13
16%
 
Total votes : 82

Nuclear Event -- Opinions please.

Unread postby JR » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 15:26:58

In light of the discussion under the Ham Radio thread...here I have been fretting about Peak Oil. Now, in light of recent world events...I was wondering what everyones opinions are of a possible nulcear event taking place. Is this something to be majorly concerned about? Are things leading up to a Nuclear war of some magnitude?

Just wondering what everyones opinions are of this.

Thanks.


JR
JR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Rural, Indiana.

Unread postby JR » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 16:08:28

Hmm...guess nobody has an opinion. Oh well.....
JR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Rural, Indiana.

Re: Opinions please.

Unread postby MadScientist » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 16:46:32

JR wrote: Now, in light of recent world events...I was wondering what everyones opinions are of a possible nulcear event taking place. Is this something to be majorly concerned about? Are things leading up to a Nuclear war of some magnitude?


JR


Majorly concerned about? Not once your defenses are in order.


Are things leading up to nuclear war? Yeah, ever since WWII things have been leading up to nuclear war. Dwindling critical resources will give people a better-than-usual reason to wage war. Will it be nuclear though?

I doubt the US will first strike anyone with nukes.
It doesnt seem likely to me that the US would respond to a terrorist nuke with a nuclear strike.
Will Russia first strike the US with ICBMs? Its certainly possible, but hard to imagine.

The Skousen link I posted in the ham radio thread gives an exhaustive strategic threat analysis for the USA. It doesnt include peak oil so I consider it somewhat outdated. Its good information either way.

"I dont know what weapons will be used in WWIII, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Einstein

"Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst" -?

"Be prepared" Boy scout motto
"The future power is manpower"
User avatar
MadScientist
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby JR » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 17:24:30

Thank you, MadScientist. And thanks to whoever changed the heading so people know what my thread is about....silly me.



JR
JR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Rural, Indiana.

Dirty Bombs

Unread postby EnviroEngr » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 17:40:39

MadScientist has some good ideas here.

The only way I can think to reply to something like this is to raise some images.

When it comes to boiling-point conflicts a) what have we done before? b) what species do we behave most like under stress?

About the best way to predict such an escalation is to see if we're a lot like insects, rodents, primates, carnivorous-predators, jelly fish, etc. You can get a sense of this by looking at archaeological records and ancient wars and empire collapses.

When you've selected the critter the mass of humanity has behaved like in the past, you can then ask "What do these things do to themselves and their environment when they are stressed like this?"

This is an exercise of imagination, to be sure, but it is an important step in constructing the basis of a tenable theory. The probability cone that contains the set that describes our collective future actions at any point further away than a week or two is incomprehensibly wide. Even if you narrow the set attributes to only those that predict nuclear weapon deployment, you still have a nexus whose covariants are too numerous and too complex to resolve with what little, loosely strung together gray matter we have. Like Spock said in one of the Trek movies, "I shall have to give it my best guess." That's all we would be doing.

You can also look into Game Theory to see if you can roughly generate a Payoff Matrix from the inputs that would predict a high-potential endpoint given various constraints on the strategies between combatants or competitors. Human irrationally will ultimately have to play as a Trump Card that would interrupt the 'strategically best payoff' choice as you run through your scenarios though.


{I was the one who changed the Title. I thought it would draw the attention you're looking for.}
Last edited by EnviroEngr on Mon 21 Jun 2004, 20:15:03, edited 1 time in total.
------------------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
------------------------------------------------
(----------< Temet Nosce >----------)
___________________________
User avatar
EnviroEngr
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin

Unread postby Pops » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 18:03:24

On the disaster scale of 1 to 10 - 1 is missing a day of work due to a cold and 10 is Global Thermonuclear War.

Mutually Assured Destruction only counts with geographically discrete adversaries and reasonable people at the button. The diffuse nature of terrorism makes a first strike harder to retaliate against, so going MAD is not a deterrent to terrorists.

And the leadership of the US and the terrorists both say God tells them what to do and are assured a place in the afterlife regardless of the outcome.

Yea, I would say my personal Doomsday clock is closer to midnight, if only marginally.


BTW mid afternoon Pacific time is usually pretty quiet here.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Unread postby The_Virginian » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 18:05:20

I doubt the US will first strike anyone with nukes


Unless it be the newest attemptee to enter to the nuclear club... Iran.

8O
[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watchv=Ai4te4daLZs&feature=related[/url] "My soul longs for the candle and the spices. If only you would pour me a cup of wine for Havdalah...My heart yearning, I shall lift up my eyes to g-d, who provides for my needs day and night."
User avatar
The_Virginian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Sat 19 Jun 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby Licho » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 18:14:19

MadScientists, where does your belief that USA would not strike first comes from?

few facts:
- USA is only country that ever used nuclear weapons
- USA is only country that currently threatens to use them
- USA is still developing better nuclear weapons
- USA violated treaty with Russians about not making space defense system (which causes further nuclear arms race)
- USA has biggest reserves of both nuclear and chemical wmd in the world
User avatar
Licho
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon 31 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU

Unread postby Licho » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 18:20:15

I forget to add, that USA are also considered to be biggest threat to world peace by perhaps majority of world population. At least studies done in Europe and Asia show that people there consider USA as an country that represents biggest threat to peace.
User avatar
Licho
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon 31 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU

Unread postby MadScientist » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 18:29:45

I doubt the US will first strike with nukes because we have so many other economic/military/political weapons.

All your points are true and the US certainly could pre-emptive strike a nation we perceived as enough of a threat to warrant it. The following article is a good example of what the US has done in the last couple years regarding nuclear weaponry:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html

I still dont expect nukes to be used by the US until the situation escalates dramatically, if ever. There's just too much political fallout 8) from a nuclear attack to make it practical unless desperate, in my less-than-expert opinion.
"The future power is manpower"
User avatar
MadScientist
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby Licho » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 18:43:32

Well same arguments are true for other coutnries too. They simply cannot attack USA - if they do, they will be destroyed. Only USA does have capacity to completely vaporize any other country and in future perhaps even prevent nukes to impact on its own territory. This makes very dangerous combination, because it can be tempting to "safely" use nuclear weapons during some war or crisis.
User avatar
Licho
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon 31 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU

Unread postby JR » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 19:12:21

Thank you all for you replies. Not sure if it's diminished my fears altogether, but I am not quite as freaked out. I am just an average "joe shmoe" person so I don't really understand it all. I just know that all the current events in the world make the future very unsure.




JR
JR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Rural, Indiana.

Unread postby The_Virginian » Mon 21 Jun 2004, 20:01:19

Only USA does have capacity to completely vaporize any other country and in future perhaps even prevent nukes to impact on its own territory.


Ruskies also have a big Nuclear arsenal, and their "missle defense" is more appropriate for large scale attacks. They envision blowing up nukes in the stratosphere to explode the incoming missles before they reach mother Russia. Hey well at least it SOUNDS good. ;)

Europe has some PAC systems (via the USA). And if they want to increase their millitary expenditures they too could be a nuclear "big boy."

China is a BIG player on the Nuclear football field now, they have enough W-88's to glass over the world. I have no idea about their missle defense.

One note of concern for the US is that the PAC3 system was only 50% effective in gulf war II. (better than 20% in GWI).

"the camp" may be a Psy-op prank, but Lybia, iran, and Pakistan all fund numerous terrorist groups (proxy armies) that can be used to deliver a "hit" with deniability...

Its a dangerous world out there with plenty of U isotopes around....
[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watchv=Ai4te4daLZs&feature=related[/url] "My soul longs for the candle and the spices. If only you would pour me a cup of wine for Havdalah...My heart yearning, I shall lift up my eyes to g-d, who provides for my needs day and night."
User avatar
The_Virginian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Sat 19 Jun 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby PhilBiker » Tue 22 Jun 2004, 07:36:17

I hope to God that it comes to thermonuclear world. Frankly I think it would be better to be dead in a war now than alive a decade post-peak. It would be merciful to go up in a flash. (I live close enough to ground zero that I could arrange to be there for the "big day").

China will be facing mass starvations when we can no longer send them grain (soon). They are muich closer to oil reserves than we are. Tensions will heat up a great deal regardless of recent trade agreements. They may figure the best hope for their future is to nuke us, their main rival for resources, accept the fallout (pun intended) and go on into the post-oil age with a depleted (and perhaps sustainable) population and no rival.

I hope it plays out that way because it would be quick and merciful for me. :(
PhilBiker
 

Unread postby Philbiker » Tue 22 Jun 2004, 07:42:46

Too bad about all that Stontium 90 though.
Philbiker
 

Unread postby JR » Tue 22 Jun 2004, 07:56:04

Philbiker, you have made me very depressed today. :cry:
JR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Rural, Indiana.

Unread postby Pops » Tue 22 Jun 2004, 10:13:58

I did the duck and cover exercises at school in the sixties. For a little kid who doesn’t understand what is going it’s pretty scary, but in some way empowering – regardless of the real world benefit.

I suggest reading the link that MS provided to Nuclear War Survival skills. While the real world practicality of the knowledge may be minimal, in my mind it is better to at least feel somewhat prepared, than hoping to be at ground zero.

Chances are the Big One won’t fall on your head and even given forewarning, I truly doubt you’ll load up the kids and drive downtown. On 9/11 I didn’t see anyone except emergency personnel running TOWARD the towers.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Unread postby PhilBiker » Tue 22 Jun 2004, 14:11:03

Considering the dangers from fallout in a global thermonuclear conflict....

I was born in the 60s and grew up in the 70s so I spent a lot of my formative years obsessing about nuclear war and energy conservation. Regarding the global toll of a thermonuclear war, I don't think it will be too bad for the survivors. If you do some investigation into the open-air nuclear testing by the Soviets and USA in the 50s and 60s you'll see that we blew up a LOT of big-ass nukes and let the fallout fall where it may. The whole U.S.A., notably upstate New York, got a lot of it from the Nevada tests, as the mushroom cloud shot into the atmoshpere and dropped thousands of miles away as rain.

Yeah, there is strontium 90 mixed in with our calcium to this day, and who can count how many cancers were caused, but it didn't cause a massive mega-toxification of the earth. Look it up, we blew up a lot of bombs in those tests.

Many films are available on the DoE website - fascinating, terrible, awesome, strangely beautiful releases of energy.
PhilBiker
 

Unread postby PhilBiker » Tue 22 Jun 2004, 14:13:33

Chances are the Big One won’t fall on your head and even given forewarning, I truly doubt you’ll load up the kids and drive downtown.
I don't have kids, my wife and I both work just a few blocks of The Big Target for anyone attacking the USA. If something happens when we're at work I'm going out to the Mall to say Rosaries. I have a feeling I won't be alone. If we're at home, we're only a few miles from one of the main "shadow government" facilities and most definitely a major target.
PhilBiker
 

Stanislav Petrov -the world's greatest unsung hero

Unread postby Chicagoan » Wed 17 Nov 2004, 03:37:44

He averted a catastrophe that could have shaken the foundation of the Earth for many centuries to come — and the future of humanity forever . . .
http://www.brightstarsound.com/world_hero/article.html

I am totally speachless.
Chicagoan
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat 19 Jun 2004, 02:00:00

Next

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: vox_mundi and 14 guests