Nuclear War, What's To Fear?

[aileron]

Perfectly fitting for a country that's still got more than 20.000 live nukeler warheads on a hair's trigger, deployed across the globe.

There aren't 20,000 nuclear warheads left on the whole planet.  At its peak the US had over 30,000, but now we're down to 4650 deployed nuclear warheads and 2700 awaiting deactivation. 

[Mandingo]

There aren't 20,000 nuclear warheads left on the whole planet.  At its peak the US had over 30,000, but now we're down to 4650 deployed nuclear warheads and 2700 awaiting deactivation.

Does that make it any better, you think?

[aileron]

Does that make it any better, you think?

Yes.  Nuclear weapons have ended symmetrical warfare, by orders of magnitude the most destructive kind of war.  Yet having more nuclear weapons than are necessary for this purpose is an unnecessary risk and environmental hazard.  The USA and Russia are targeting 1550 strategic warheads each by 2018.  This is still probably more than required to deter symmetrical warfare, but any action toward that minimum required level is a good thing.

[Mandingo]

What part of Europe?

The Fulda gap.

My brother was in Germany for a lot of that shit as a TC and loved quoting life expectancy numbers to my mom to see her reaction.

Mine was 2 minutes, 30 seconds after first contact, in a conventional war!

[DunkleSeele]

The Fulda gap.

I hope you had at least some chance to enjoy the town of Fulda. Beautiful place.

[stromboli]

Weird, huh? I was at one tip of the nuclear trident sitting 3,000 miles away from my intended target watching movies and drinking coffee, others here sitting in tanks staring at enemy territory just a few hundred yards away. My ship was lurking in as close to invisibility as you can get, yet when the missiles are launched, is suddenly exposed in position and place. Imagine a shoot and run scenario.

The movie "On The Beach" portrayed a US nuclear submarine in Australia after a nuclear exchange, while the people from Australia were waiting for the radiation to creep up on them. The ship goes to the coast of the US to investigate a radio signal that turns out to be an automatic warning set off accidentally on a dead continent. Spooky, but not realistic. Every scenario based on real data and probable targets and so on indicated a horrible aftermath, but not as dire as predicted in some of the movies I've seen.

I have probably seen and read more postwar scenarios than anyone here because the Naval War College and others ran them constantly, determining the viability and outcome of war. That was my reading material on patrol. It wasn't light reading, to say the least.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Two things I want in the event of all out nuclear war, a comfy lawn chair and a bottle of good bourbon then wait for the fireworks show. I have utterly zero interest in the "out of the ashes" type scenarios and associated bullshit.

[Mandingo]

Yes.  Nuclear weapons have ended symmetrical warfare, by orders of magnitude the most destructive kind of war.  Yet having more nuclear weapons than are necessary for this purpose is an unnecessary risk and environmental hazard.  The USA and Russia are targeting 1550 strategic warheads each by 2018.  This is still probably more than required to deter symmetrical warfare, but any action toward that minimum required level is a good thing.

That sounds remarkably akin to the arguments in favor of common citizens owning and carrying fire arms. I.o.w.: idiotic.

Just this week a 3 year old girl shot her 2 year old brother dead with daddy's gun. You can read about this kind of 'accident' every week. If there weren't 290 million fire arms in the hands of US citizens this would not happen.

Remember Murphy's Law? "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong!"
With thousands and thousands of nukeler arms a disaster is simply an accident waiting to happen. It's not a question of IF, only of WHEN.

[aileron]

That sounds remarkably akin to the arguments in favor of common citizens owning and carrying fire arms. I.o.w.: idiotic.

That's a very weak analogy.  Common citizens do not maintain nuclear weapons.  Humans are a very war-like species, and as long as the policymakers who start wars feel they're likely to escape the suffering it causes they're inclined to start wars.  History has shown this all too well. 

Symmetrical wars between apex nations and alliances are exceptionally commonplace in our history.  WWII followed on the heals of WWI, a mere 21 years.  Now we have not had that type of war for nearly 70 years, and there is practically no likelihood of such a war for the foreseeable future.  It's not because our genes have changed or world leaders suddenly became nice people. 

Just this week a 3 year old girl shot her 2 year old brother dead with daddy's gun.

Are you aware of many incidents where a three year old took control of a nuclear weapon's method of deployment?

Remember Murphy's Law? "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong!"
With thousands and thousands of nukeler arms a disaster is simply an accident waiting to happen. It's not a question of IF, only of WHEN.

As someone who's been a part of the elaborate systems of controls for nuclear weapons that have only increased over the years, I know the potential for accidental nuclear yield of any type is exceptionally remote.  The cost outweighs the benefit of destroying them all.  As soon as they're all gone, the world will resume killing itself in massive conventional wars. 

[Mandingo]

I know the potential for accidental nuclear yield of any type is exceptionally remote.

Yeah, like the Titanic was unsinkable...