[AgentR11]

To folks reading that think I'm being overly dramatic.

JP Morgan's James Dimon: “Most important, the specter of nuclear weapons — probably still the greatest threat to mankind — hovers as the ultimate decider, which should strike deep fear in all our hearts. ."

Published today....
https://reports.jpmorganchase.com/inves ... etters.htm

The Nuclear issue has not gotten better, its worse, and worse by a lot.

[yellowcanoe]

WW1 saw the introduction of chemical warfare - chlorine gas and mustard gas. By WW2, Germany and a few other countries had developed much more lethal nerve gas agents. Yet even the Nazis, one of the most depraved bunches in modern history chose not to use chemical weapons. The Western Allies decided they would use chemical weapons only if the Nazis used them first. There is some evidence that Hitler himself was against use of chemical weapons as he had personally experienced the effects of mustard gas in WW1.

It is conceivable that nuclear weapons will be treated the same way that chemical weapons were in WW2 -- only used if the other side uses them first. It is therefore conceivable for example that a direct war could be fought between NATO and Russia without triggering a nuclear war. Of course there is no guarantee it would work out that way and the major powers have avoided direct confrontation since WW2 opting instead to support a number of proxy wars fought by allies equipped only with conventional weapons.

[Newfie]

I agree it is a problem and one likely to get worse.

On the one hand you have Russia who likes to talk about nukes, a lot, and in pretty graphic terms. That creates a dilemma. If you cower at those threat the. You give Russia license to do whatever it likes. One other option is to call their bluff. And that is where the MAD rational comes to play. If you consider a religious nutter rational. It is a huge risk but I see little alternative. Perhaps playing Russia and running the. Into the gutter. But that is no guarantee of success, they could loose control of the nukes to other even more rabid nutters.

Then there is Pakistan. A nuclear country under siege by Islamic nutters. Those devices could get loose into the radical segments, or Pakistan could give/sell them. The democratization of nuclear military power.

Not a lot I like in any of that.

[careinke]

I agree it is a problem and one likely to get worse.

On the one hand you have Russia who likes to talk about nukes, a lot, and in pretty graphic terms. That creates a dilemma. If you cower at those threat the. You give Russia license to do whatever it likes. One other option is to call their bluff. And that is where the MAD rational comes to play. If you consider a religious nutter rational. It is a huge risk but I see little alternative. Perhaps playing Russia and running the. Into the gutter. But that is no guarantee of success, they could loose control of the nukes to other even more rabid nutters.

Then there is Pakistan. A nuclear country under siege by Islamic nutters. Those devices could get loose into the radical segments, or Pakistan could give/sell them. The democratization of nuclear military power.

Not a lot I like in any of that.

Let's be real. So far, the U.S. has been the only "nutter" to use nukes. Hopefully it will continue that way, if not we will all be dead in 72 minutes, so I'm not worrying about it.

Peace

[yellowcanoe]

Let's be real. So far, the U.S. has been the only "nutter" to use nukes. Hopefully it will continue that way, if not we will all be dead in 72 minutes, so I'm not worrying about it.

Peace

The odd thing is that while there was a lot of discussion at a high level before the decision was made to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, there wasn't a similar discussion before the army airforce started fire bombing cities in Japan. The fire bombing attacks killed far more people than the two atomic bombs did!

[careinke]

Let's be real. So far, the U.S. has been the only "nutter" to use nukes. Hopefully it will continue that way, if not we will all be dead in 72 minutes, so I'm not worrying about it.

Peace

The odd thing is that while there was a lot of discussion at a high level before the decision was made to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, there wasn't a similar discussion before the army airforce started fire bombing cities in Japan. The fire bombing attacks killed far more people than the two atomic bombs did!

Unfortunately, most atomic bombs today are just a wee bit larger than in WWII. Add in the Launch On Warning Protocol, combined with our brain dead President, things could go sour very quickly.

Peace

[AgentR11]

If you cower at those threat the. You give Russia license to do whatever it likes. One other option is to call their bluff. And that is where the MAD rational comes to play.

I think there's a middle ground with Russia, and that's Crimea. Its almost entirely Russian population to begin with, and has a "storied" history with the country. Defeat them in Ukraine, demonstrate continued conventional superiority and then let them hold Crimea anyway.

I don't really like the above that much, I think it'd be so cool to remove all the Russians and make Sevastopol an awesomely annoying NATO naval base under a fledgling sponsor like a newly minted Ukraine, or let the UK manage it, they've been there before. But I think you start to risk destabilizing Russia and exchanging Nuclear Weapons at that point, a risk the place really isn't worth.

Leaving them with Crimea does end the conflict, keep UA mostly UA and intact, and removes a large Russian voting pool so they can resume elections with a guaranteed NATO sympathetic government.

[ralfy]

Well, it only takes one nut.

[theluckycountry]

Add in the Launch On Warning Protocol, combined with our brain dead President, things could go sour very quickly.

Well there is the energy/population solution you were discussing on the EV thread. A lot cheaper than trying to control Billions of starving people. The U.S. is the biggest consumer and it's not like it's worth saving anyway is it? It's all mined out, covered in aging concrete and toxic waste, infested with drug addicts perverts and murderers. I mean really, if you were God, what would you consider a rational solution?

Down and out in Alaska
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RFs999DshY

[AgentR11]

Russia successfully tested an ICBM (don't know type) today, firing from the Astrakhan area North of Iran, flight path into an Eastern Russian training facility.

Just a little wave "hello."

[theluckycountry]

Russia successfully tested an ICBM (don't know type) today, firing from the Astrakhan area North of Iran, flight path into an Eastern Russian training facility.

Just a little wave "hello."

It's like the 1930's, everyone tooling up for the Big one, chaffing at the bit to get started. I don't know why nations go crazy every 80 odd years but it's a demonstrable fact that they do.

[jato0072]

How many wars have been fought on earth? - Quora
Since the end of ww1, there have been 260 major wars in the world. in human history, it varies. early humans could have fought wars that went unnoticed. sources range from 100,000 to 300,000.

List of Wars

We are overdue for a large war.

[theluckycountry]

Long overdue. Conscript the millennials and the Gen-Z, send them off, make men and women out of them. Wasn't that what they did with Vietnam? Rounded up the deadhead hippies and sent them off for a taste of reality.

[ralfy]

New wars involve drones, etc., which kill via anti-personnel weapons. That might explain why most from any generation don't want to serve in many countries.

[careinke]

Well, it only takes one nut.

The most likely is lets go Brandon.

Peace

[ralfy]

One interview shared in the forum reveals that U.S. automatically retaliates.

[AgentR11]

One interview shared in the forum reveals that U.S. automatically retaliates.

I don't think our "Launch on Warning" policy has been a well kept secret or anything. I do think the likely actors have changed such that maybe its not such a reasonable policy anymore. One missile in from NK, Iran, or whoever, nothing extra would be lost in waiting for physical confirmation and then retaliating.

[Newfie]

I recently read an article about a radical Islamic group from Afghanistan making significant headway into Pakistan. Apparently they are much opposed to China’s Belt and Road and muck else.

I have ling considered a Pakistan/India exchange possible.

I wonder how safe Pakistans nukes are. Should they get loose in extremeist hands that could be nasty.

[ralfy]

One interview shared in the forum reveals that U.S. automatically retaliates.

I don't think our "Launch on Warning" policy has been a well kept secret or anything. I do think the likely actors have changed such that maybe its not such a reasonable policy anymore. One missile in from NK, Iran, or whoever, nothing extra would be lost in waiting for physical confirmation and then retaliating.

My point is that the states won't need Brandon.

[jato0072]

Replace Reagan with Brandon.