I'm curious on the thoughts of people here... Do you guys thing it's possible for another world war to be started in the face of nuclear weaponry?... is there anyone out there that would do something so drastic as to deploy a nuclear weapon, on america that is... The last world war was ended with a nuke... What do you guys think the possibility of another one ending with hundreds of them is? very scary thought...
I dunno. Mutually Assured Destruction, as someone has already pointed out, makes sure that both sides know not to deploy their weaponery. See, the downside to destroying the earth is that it invariably involves the piece you are standing on. However, terrorists groups don't need to worry about MAD, and some states like N. Korea don't have shit to be destroyed in the first place. Freedom's just another word for nothing else to lose...
MAD worked for decades, but may not as much in the future as smaller rogue outfits become nuclear-equipped. That might mean regional exchanges more than world war, though.
I think it's very possible, and almost likely to happen. Nuclear weapons have been accidently dropped and mishandled several times by the US (there is a nuclear weapon under the waves of Savannah's shores that has yet to be retrieved - and it has approx. 10 times the yield of the bomb that went off in Hiroshima, or so the History Channel says.) The bomb is called The Tybee Bomb and you can read about all history of Nuclear weapons and the United States there. There is a retired scientist in NZ that is privately contracted to builds bombs and sells them predominantly to countries and/or to clients in the south pacific and south asian regions of the world. I have been to his website, but have been able to find it just now as it was last June that I first stumbled across his page. I never bookmarked the damn site, and just sent it to my friends in an email instead, which of course I purge regularly. I'll keep looking for it. In the meantime, take a look at SpaceWar. I personally can't think of a situation that would call for a country to execute immediate nuclear bombing, unless it was provoked by some extreme hatred and/or fuelled by other allies to do so. The worst possible scenario in my opinion would be a religious-based nuclear war. I can only assume that it would be quickly stiffled with the intervention and help of outside countries if ever the situation arose. Politicians are smart enough to know that arms dealing has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with security and control. Authoritarian states that are armed, isolated and angry at their neighbours are the most likely to strike down their neighbours. In these countries, the governments are the terrorists - there is no one else to reconcile with. Fortunately for the United States, none of the state's bounder nations are any threat of nuclear attack. That doesn't mean I think it's impossible for a nuclear strike to occur against the United States. One could easily air bomb a nuclear power plant or holding facility, but I can't foresee any country or coalition of countries from the West purposefully going to war with the USA.
I don't think MAD works with suicidals.. However for those more civilized I think it's a pretty good deterrent.. Don't want any one faction having too much control, better for it to be fragmented.. Have all the different sides keep each other in some sort of insane balance.
MAD was a good theory during the Cold War...but I don't think it applies to todays nucelar threats...threats that exist more for religious reasons than economic, social, and political ones. Iran, North Korea, it could happen.
MAD is a great concept for those who have something to loose but understand if you have nothing to loose than why would you care? Many countries have different views of life (i.e.) Japan, used men as human bombs in ww2, korea and vietnam both used woman and children as suicide victims to destroy the enemy. We Americans think that terrible so would another country who has different views be willing to end it all? You tell me! We are all lucky the the terrorists have not actually done what their name implies! Terrorism is the greatest form of combat. You attack any and all random targets that need not be related to stir terror in the intended enemy. (i.e.): If they really wanted to mess with us simply small groups of 3 could easily slip in and around the country shooting up daycares, schools, malls, medical facilities and such. Really no protection to deal with and would have a far reaching impact. People would not be sending kids to school, parents would have trouble going to work, shopping would really not be on anyones minds plus the fear of an attack. Toss people into fear, slow down productions and economy and (WELLA) you have provided a major blow. Targets could easily be anywere, in small rural towns, big cities and very hard to ever detect the attackers. Nukes would be a waste of time, we value life too much and value a youths life so much more than an adult and value and adult even more than a cops and a cops more than a soldier. So attack youth and focus on the grade school and younger and the impact would bring us to our knees! Another great thought is biological. People tend to make plans to complicated, simple would be 1000 small sample packs of some sort of purfume in foil packs like what avaon and then used to have to pass out for free. Send 100 to 10 major cities as free samples. Lace the samples with a fast spreading deadly disease (plague) and by the time it is notice you have to ask (how many people would they have come in contact with, did they fly to other cities, and how many people did those ppl come in contact with?) There used to be a site that ran that little senerio and the number of losses was astonishing to the tune of 30% population decrease in major cities! They took that info off I assume as to not give ideas! Amazing you could have the post office send out all this for you undetected. So just when you felt safe or had it all figured out, look to the simple ideas! Nukes are complicated to deliver for the most part and the material needed is easily detected.
Did they? Yes on paper on the deck of the USS Missouri they did but they also had sent an official to sign a peace alliance with us who was in our country the day Pearl Harbor was attacked. They also stated the day they signed the surrender that "Next time we shall attack you from within". So did they surrender or just regroup? The atomic bomb was a weapon that had never been seen before, the shock factor of its mass destruction and the fact that we led the japanese to believe at the time we had many more made thier minds change. In the end it seemed their minds changed from not if they still sought to attack us but rather their methods of how they were going to do it. Now looking at the big picture has Japan served us a hard punch? Looking at the big picture we were a country of industry, manufacturing, power and wealth. It may look like that exists but look at all the places we outsource to, look who is ahead in industry, technology, manufacturing, who has plants here and whos value of currency has raced upwards. What country is in trouble, what country is viewed badly, what country is in alot of trouble? War to be "won" is alot about timming, the right friends, and the end result. It does not have to be about guns, bombs and death.
