Like all children of the 70s/80s, I grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation constantly hanging over my head. With the Cold War considered about as relevant today as the 30 Years' War, I worry some of the young whipper-snappers here may have no idea what 'nuclear war' means. I fear forgetting it may make it inevitable.

As a child of the 80s the constant threat of nuclear annihilation was a considerably less important issue than developing new strategies to win at snakes and ladders. You must have been the very last generation to be at all impacted. World War II was far relevant because that's what grandad did.

I should emphasize at this point, before some of the more excitable members leap in, that my Grandad wasn't Hitler...

#Octsgrandadwashitler

I don't recall that I had a brother called Octavious? Oh, I missed the "not"

The thing that scares me more is the likelihood of an EMP attack.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-woolsey-and-peter-vincent-pry-the-growing-threat-from-an-emp-attack-1407885281

Please be courteous to those running the game and respect any reasonable requests they [url=http://www.spanishprograms.com]spanish programs - free spanish lessons[/url] may make. This semester will be taught by Professor abgemacht,

I totally understand where Tolstoy is coming from. I remember a class in junior high where we were taught about multi-warhead ICBM's, and given estimates of weapons stockpiles owned by the US and USSR. Told to get under our desks if anything happened. I remember a TV movie - The Day After (1983) about the survivors of a nuclear attack. I, too, was convinced for a time that my life was going to end in nuclear holocaust, or that at best I would be the survivor in a desolate nuclear winter.

In part, this is why I have to laugh at the idiocy of the global warming nutjobs -- creating doomsday scenarios out of fraudulent "science" and computer models that have yet to come up with a single correct prediction. There's been plenty of things in history to be afraid of - the worst of them being annihilation at the hands of madmen with true descriptive capabilities under their ego-maniacal fingertips. That, truly, would have been the end of the world as we know it. We *knew* what the results of mutually assured destruction would be, in principle if not fact. The things the children quiver about in fear today? Luaghable...

Dipplayer has it right, though, when he suggest alternate fears for today, such as EMP attack. Or, the seemingly now-forgotten threat of biological attack (which, frankly, I'm quite disappointed the ridiculous terrorist have never found a way to unleash upon some cesspool like Hollywood...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHMzCpy0fXc

Baby got an atom bomb
22-megatons...


Baby got a poison gas
Baby got a heart attacks
Baby got a pain on tap
Baby gimme some of that

@ krellin:

Climat scientists have made many accurate predictions. Read this, then go back to tending your goats:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

Jamie - you are so full of shit, it isn't even funny. I don't believe that biased article you posted any further than i believe any of the shit that comes from you.

Climate "scientists" have been lying and manipulating data for decades now. This has been proven. If, suddenly, they have "correct predictions", it is most likely because they have gone back and revised their predictions to meet the history they supposedly predicted.

Global warming is a fucking scam, you mind-numbed zealot.

On about a weekly basis I can find articles that say, "Huh....climate scientists are stumped by what has/hasn't happened...and have a new theory about (why what is happening isn't what they thought)...and blah blah blah..." They CONSTANTLY confess their fucking ignorance....meaning there is NO FUCKING WAY their models are accurate....and yet MORONS like you accept every word they utter as if it was from God Himself.

Go away, you ignorant, ridiculous fuck.

WELL! that was fun. back to the original topic...

I thank God that I live in the midwest. They'll nuke Dallas and then be like 'Shit! there is NOTHING else of value here!!! unless you like deep set stances on racism and incest that belie most others'

[what is this 'oil' you speak of? we do not have him here :P]

@ krellin:

How interesting that you believe every word of articles in the corporate mass media that allow you to continue your wasteful, over-consumptive lifestyle, and keep on buying the corporate machine's products, whereas you disbelieve the articles that would force you to make any changes.

oh, global warming again! i will post these questions once again, hoping that krellin will answer me.

". What specific evidence would climate scientists have to produce to convince you that human caused GHGs are a significant contributor to the current global warming?

. Do you believe there is a difference between long-term trend and variability?

. Name the title of one published paper that was corrected or retracted as a result of "climategate"

. Why haven't any scientific papers been challenged for manipulation or fraud by Heartland, Watts, Singer, Inhofe, Curry, Spencer, Bastardi, Morono or any of the other deniers?

. Name the title or author of one climate science paper that was rejected by a reputable journal because it contradicted the theory that human caused GHGs are a significant contributor to the current global warming.

. After all the screaming about not having access to climate data (i.e. the "hide the decline" data that wasn't licensed for redistribution), why has nothing been done by the "skeptics" since it was made available to them?

. Name the published science paper(s) that used the "hide the decline" source code in their analysis

. Why is it permissible for UAH to alter climate data before publication without any outcry at all, but similar alterations are not permissible for anyone else?

. If the climate science data is being faked/altered, then why do anti-science wackos cherry pick the climate science data to try to "prove" there is a global conspiracy?

. Every national academy of science on planet Earth (I believe there are 22 of them) has published a statement agreeing that human produced GHG emissions is the most likely explanation for current warming. How did they all arrive at the wrong answer?

. Why does the profit motive only affect climate science? Why doesn't it affect condensed matter physics, or ag science or geophysics?

. Why doesn't the profit and personal gain motive affect sensationalist media websites like Watts, Singer, Inhofe, Spencer etc. the same way it supposedly affects climate science?"

Its very scary, but, honestly, so is a world without nuclear deterrence Since the modern era began there have been at least a bakers dozen of world wars. That stopped with nuclear deterrence.

You think we're up to World War 13?

I thought there had been two.

You have shown to be ignorant of history many times in the past, so im not surprised.

Although to be fair I meant to say 6 world wars but I put 13 instead.

Half dozen, bakers' dozen, same difference!

SantaClausowitz: Care to name them?
I'm ignorant of history as well and wish to be educated.

@ Steephie: Name them? No problem:

World War I
World War II
World War III
World War IV
World War V
World War VI

You're welcome.


@ SantaClausowitz: You don't know the difference between 6 and 13, and I'm the ignorant one? Ok, sure. Fine.

I meant to say half dozen, i said bakers dozen by accident, so shoot me. You are also the idiot that doesn't understand time zones so that whole things about stones and glass houses.

Queen Anne's War- Fought on 3 continents
Seven Years War- Fought on five continents between several powers
American Revolutionary War- Fought on four continents beetween 5 powers
The Napoleonic Wars- Fought fucking everywhere
WWI
WWII

You could throw in more but these are the ones i was thinking of

I like this thread. I like most of the posts are insulting to someone. We don;t get much of that in here lately...

But I agree with Santa, the is nothing exceptionally worldly about "World War II", and it was the war that "created" the term World War.

Anyway, my favorite war was the Great War. It was simple, it was "clean". No holocaust, no burning cities to excess, just a bunch of soldiers throwing gas at each other and sitting in trenches. Even the tanks were so much more awesome back then. And it resulted in creation of like a bakers dozen of new countries (including Poland) so basically yay Great War.

And as for the original topic:

I like the article, because in some way it makes people think what it would be like if the war came to us. For the same reason I love this short movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBvhYkIt-Xg
We are used to thinking "it's over there", which makes us believe that it isn't really our problem, that whatever we would do about it it would be so generous of us, we'd be such great people/nation to help them, but in my opinion peace and safety is not a privilege but something that everyone should take care of... Ahh, utopia...

And to be honest I am a bit disappointed, as I really thought at the end of this article there'd be something like "we know quite well what a nuclear explosion does to a city because we are the only nation to use it... twice".

"We are used to thinking "it's over there", which makes us believe that it isn't really our problem..."

I take American exceptionalism with this comment.

Jeff, very is a huge difference between politicians sending troops to fight a proxy war against communism or conquer a country that turns out to be quite profitable, and the general population realizing that situations like ISIS or Ukraine is not something that will always be happening "over there", because if nobody does anything it will come to us.

Even in case of Afghanistan, which kind of was like ISIS, I remember the shitstorm any polish soldier died (and we lost like maybe 30 all together), even though absolutely no-one forced them to go there and so on and so on.

Well, they kind of had a point since Poland is one of the countries with the smallest terrorist threat, so one could reckon, like, don't poke the dragon. But nevertheless, being idle is even worse I think.

You may have seen the meme saying "The United States has been at war for all but 21 years since 1776." I think we know something about not being idle in world affairs.

And it is precisely because of American exceptionalism--our homeland is relatively secure because we span the continent (as do our northern and southern neighbors) as a result of manifest destiny--that we can afford to do so.

Don't confuse greed with compassion, mate. If your government declares war for power, it's part of the problem, not the solution.

As long as you don't confuse cries for assistance with a domestic projection of strength, we're all good.

I'm going to jump in on the OP first. Has anyone ever seen: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Yea it's twisted but you can make local the example given in the OP.

Now onto the global warming idea V M.A.D thing. I don't think we can discount that M.A.D is still a threat and a far more immediate threat than a scientific theory about global temperatures rising. Simply put both the RF and U.S have access to thousands of nuclear arms and now more nations are gaining access.

Onto the U.S and war. The U.S has committed itself to war almost consistently over the course of our history but in today's America less than 1% of american's have served in the military and only about 1/2 of them have fought in combat. This creates a very ignorant society on both sides of the spectrum. One side is so blind to the horrors of war that it is their go to option for international disputes, while the other has exaggerated war and exaggerated the ability for humans to negotiate to the point where they ignore the occasional necessity of war.

"in today's America less than 1% of american's have served in the military and only about 1/2 of them have fought in combat"

There are over 20 million veterans in the US. Unless the American population has increased to double that of China over the last couple of years your stats are embarrassingly wrong.

Before Jamiet derailed my point (as usual) for no reason (as usual) when he didn't know what he was talking about (as usual) I made a point that nuclear weapons have made an extremely destructive hegemonic struggle very unlikely. Nuclear weapons are terrible and terrifying but are they a necessary evil to prevent the destruction of full scale conventional world war?

Okay, in all seriousness, this is an interesting point, if not a new concept.

If we accept that there has not been a "world war" since 1945, can we also claim that this is *because* of the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Would WWIII have happened already if the world was nuke-free? What is the evidence?

I think so. Again:

We live in an era in which the nuclear bomb would have earned the Nobel Peace Prize in the hall of mirrors of the completely distorted logic. The mutually assured destruction, shortened MAD, signifies at the same time in English 'incredibly" or 'crazy' - and it's pretty right. In the cold war the "Balance of Terror" between the USA and the Soviet Union could be understood play-theoretically as a Nash balance. Today in the German language the usage of the term nuclear deterrence is more frequently and stands colloquially for: Who shoots first, dies as second.

It's a dance on a huge volcano because the basic acceptance of the MAD doctrine consists in the fact, that no side is so irrational to accept the destruction of own country for the destruction of the opponent one also. The opponents will renounce an atomic first blow if the opponent has afterwards still the possibility or potential of a counterblow. The fear of the open "Pandora's box" leads to an indeed fraught with tension, but still stable peace. Till present in view of conventional World Wars. And of course, we had more luck than mind through this period.

The irony of this policy is to be able to implement the doctrine, meaning all potential opponents must maintain a steady overkill capacity, so that after the destruction of a big part of own nuclear weapons the remaining smaller rest still is sufficient to the complete destruction of the opponent also. It's a pure policy of deterrence, a political strategy for the reduction of the likelihood of a big war, it collapse with a huge high escalation and destruction risk. Because by their use for the deterrence, nuclear weapons are often called also political weapons - her purpose is the lack of use.

By nuclear symmetrical power relations the threat with the use of nuclear weapon is therefore always a high self-destruction risk. The draft of the peace preservation by mutual deterrence (dissuasion) developed when after 1945 the comprehensive, unleashed huge destruction strength of the nuclear weapons penetrated into the conscience and consciousness of the politically responsible. In the official military doctrine of the USA the concept found for the first time in 1961 use. To prevent an inadvertent release of a nuclear war, communication mechanisms were installed (e.g., the 'red phone' after the Cuba crisis).

US-President Reagan proposed in 1983 with his strategic defense initiative (SDI) to substitute for the balance of the MAD with a new strategy of the American superiority. The USA should be protected by a comprehensive antiballistic missile defense before attacks or counterbeating from the Soviet Union, and keep her own first blow capacity, however. Protagonists of these ideas also spoke of mutual assured security. The SDI project and with it the dangerous undermining of the arrangement of the mutual secure destruction failed on the technical and financial hurdles.

Critics of the MAD doctrine stated that the apronym MAD suits to the English term mad (crazy or incredibly), it would be based on some contestable acceptances:

- Perfect recognition
- Absolute rationality
- Inability in the defense

Concluding I can say, nevertheless, that I have no fear of a nuclear weapons state, I have fear of the not controllable man with only "one" nuclear bomb. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1208634&page-thread=17