Accidental nuclear war

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


And this is what I was referring to before.

As one writer said, people who strategize about nuclear conflict are like virgins discussing sex. They have absolutely no idea of what nuclear war will really be like.

There were dozens, if not hundreds of war plans based around the idea of limited nuclear war, but all would have ended in disaster, since the Soviet Union was at a major disadvantage and could only maintain a credible threat at the time by means of all out destruction.

Bertrand Russell once said that you could expect a man to walk a tightrope without falling for half an hour or so, but no-one would expect him to walk for 100 years without falling off.

to be clear I didn't mean that one of the involved parties to the regional nuclear war would starrt a general nuclear war, but rather that the lopsidedness of that nuclear war would make war between nuclear powers that had not been involved in the conflict far more likely. Your comments about limted use of nukes in the bipolar era of the cold war seem more relevant to events within two nuclear armed camps following a limited nuclear conflict between the two groups.

[binTravkin]

You talk about two factors detemining chance of nuclear war:

1.More warheads/other potential nuclear war assets

2.More organisations owning those assets

In fact, the factor is so simple as the count of people having control of launch of nuclear war devices.

The more people having them, the more possibility that one of them goes mad and uses his nuke.

So, I'd say both your named factors would count, although the second would be more important (I expect that with rise in nuclear warhead count there would be more deployment locations, therefore more personell having control of the launch, but I think that'd multiply the chance at less rate than having more organisations, even if they each control one device).

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
Here's a link about Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet Nuclear Command Official, who may have prevented an accidental nuclear war in 1983.

http://officersclub.blogspot.com/2006/02/man-who-saved-world.html

I'm sure that many of you have heard about it before, but it's quite an interesting story. Just shows how close we came to nuclear war at certain points.

And what happens when an Iranian system or an Israeli system gives a false result of a launched attack?

Does anybody have any doubt what that would be?

[Tattila the Hun]

There was an incident in 95, I seem to recall, a satellite launch or similar, of which the Russian authorities were not informed of.

"The most striking example of how quickly the nuclear ball can be set into motion took place on January 25, 1995, when Russian early warning radars detected a missile rising from the Norwegian Sea. Russian President Boris Yeltsin was alerted. He was brought his nuclear-command briefcase and placed in contact with his defense minister.

For several tense minutes, Yeltsin and his subordinates waited to see if Russia was coming under a submarine-based nuclear attack -- and if they needed to retaliate.

As it turned out, the missile detected by Russian radar was a Norwegian research rocket, launched on a mission to examine the aurora borealis, or Northern Lights.

An investigation into the matter revealed that Norway had indeed informed Russia about the rocket several weeks before the launch -- but, due to bureaucratic mismanagement, the announcement never reached officials involved with Moscow's early warning systems. "

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/12/spotlight/

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by binTravkin
You talk about two factors detemining chance of nuclear war:

1.More warheads/other potential nuclear war assets

2.More organisations owning those assets

In fact, the factor is so simple as the count of people having control of launch of nuclear war devices.

The more people having them, the more possibility that one of them goes mad and uses his nuke.

So, I'd say both your named factors would count, although the second would be more important (I expect that with rise in nuclear warhead count there would be more deployment locations, therefore more personell having control of the launch, but I think that'd multiply the chance at less rate than having more organisations, even if they each control one device).

Do you really think any of those people having control of the launch of a countries nukes would be allowed to launch a premeditated nuclear attack on another country by the people directly beneath them in the command heirarchy? In almost all cases such a premediated nuclear attack would be national suicide.

[Joseph]

You guys should read Red Star Rouge.

[binTravkin]

Do you really think any of those people having control of the launch of a countries nukes would be allowed to launch a premeditated nuclear attack on another country by the people directly beneath them in the command heirarchy? In almost all cases such a premediated nuclear attack would be national suicide.

Listen.

Do you really see any other chance of accidental nuclear war as someone going mad about launching a nuke?
I dont.
The incidents so far have been pretty inteligent in nature, like the mentioned 1995 and solved as proper information came in.
It is hard to fool anyone into launching, but one might go shizo or something and attempt to launch.

In that case a person can be smart enough or try enough to keep his colleagues from stopping him/her, so there's very small possibility that some madman could launch it.

And the more people control them, the more possibility one of them is mad.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by civman2000

What I've never understood about that scenario is why the Russians nuke China and Israel nukes the Arabs. What, as soon as a single nuke is launched everyone decides to randomly nuke whoever they're mad at? I would think that Russia would want to get China on their side, or at least neutral...

To me, the biggest WTF with that scenario is the beginning. More precisely, why on earth would West Germany decide it would be a good idea to try to cross into East Germany and intervene, and why would the rest of NATO allow it to happen?

There also appears to be a curious disconnect at the end. It talks about Australia taking at least a dozen warheads, which presumably would target the major cities. How Australia becomes a major power after this doesn't make much sense. Nor China roaming all over Asia after taking over 900 hits and decending into civil war (with various parts breaking away, to boot). Are they swimming to Japan?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Agathon


Actually it doesn't.

Conventional war is now less feasible than ever before due to the sheer cost of modern weaponry. In WWII fighter aircraft and tanks were relatively cheap, easy to manufacture and plentiful. Now fighter aircraft are hideously expensive, take ages to build and are scarce. The same goes for most military technology. Were a conventional war to start tomorrow, the expenditure in equipment would be quick and we would be reduced back to simpler methods quite quickly.

Not to mention that the majority of the world's population has simply gone off the idea. 100 years ago most people approved of war. Coverage of war by the mass media changed all that.

But it doesn't really matter. Absent some massive ideological difference between powers, there is simply no point to war any more. You cannot win. Decolonization, Vietnam, and now Iraq, have demonstrated that you simply cannot invade a country and get anything out of it except a long occupation and a huge bill.

Military people are basically a stupid anachronism. We have no real use for them any more. Whether we have nuclear weapons or not, the age of massive global wars is effectively over.

I stopped reading the thread with this post. You are a nut bag. You sum up all of the incorrect thinking that exists in a neat warm and fuzzy pink and perfume stinking nut bag.

War is inevitable and will occur on a massive scale and will encompass both nuke and conventional components. Technology can't and never will eliminate the reasons that wars exist and people will never evolve past the primal: greed, lust, fear, hatred.

In other words, people act irrationally and ALWAYS WILL.

[Patroklos]

For instance I've heard that in the cuban missle crisis the Soviet commander on the island, General Pliyev in charge of the missles in Cuba had standing orders to launch them if an invasion began which threatend the missles. In that case nuclear war would have begun without any real calculation to launch the missles by the top leadership on either side.

It appears to me that a very real calculation to launch missiles did take place, and the result was to launch in the case of invasion of Cuba. Or in other words, the leaders of the Soviet Union decided to have the nukes launched before the air strikes got them.

Furthermore it's quite absurd to suppose that a Chinese invasion of either japan or taiwan would by itself lead a nuclear attack on China. Neither of those places has nukes and it's very doubtful any country allied with them would be willing to open the nuclear can of worms for the sake of retribution on behalf of their ally.

I don’t think there is any doubt that a nuclear strike against Japan would yield anything but a nuclear retaliation against the perpetrator, if for no other reason than it is impossible to nuke Japan without directly nuking US forces.

As one writer said, people who strategize about nuclear conflict are like virgins discussing sex. They have absolutely no idea of what nuclear war will really be like.

And anyone lecturing them about it is basically a virgin talking about the evils of sex, unless you know anyone who has been through a general nuclear war lately. As far as real world comparisons go, who ends up looking like the ****** (assuming you’re not an actual virgin, in which case your opinion is meaningless).

“Winning” a nuclear war is all relative, obviously if one starts it is the military’s job to bring about the best possible conclusion, as it is in conventional warfare as well. I am not sure why you believe the best possible has to in any way be synonymous with good in the slightest.

And the prosecution of modern conventional warfare is not hindered because of the expense of waging it (assumed nukes are abolished). It becomes impossible because states are not willing to inflict the pain on a population nessecary to make them give up. Which is a good thing, and I find is more a development of the military psych than the civilian one. There is no such thing as a clean, smart, or anything other than nasty war.

In any case, I can see almost no case in which an accidental launch can plausibly lead to general nuclear war. What power today could have any strategic reason to launch ONE nuke, or two, or even twelve? If you cross that threshold, you are going to dish out all the damage you can as fast as you can, especially in the case of the major nuclear powers. One ICBM from Russia is obviously going to make American leaders raise an eyebrow and give each other a WTF? Especially if that nuke is not followed by a corresponding conventional military activity increase.

As far as the “computer error” thing, that is just Hollywood. Long before a Russian nuke hits our missile fields in the Dakotas and MidWest, there would be confirmed nuke hits in Hawaii and Alaska, against our deployed naval forces in the North Atlantic, and all along our coasts from SLBMs. In other words, before it is even possible to get our ICBMs off the ground, there will be no doubt whether the attack is real.

[Flip McWho]

War is inevitable

Especially with people who think like you do.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Patroklos


It appears to me that a very real calculation to launch missiles did take place, and the result was to launch in the case of invasion of Cuba. Or in other words, the leaders of the Soviet Union decided to have the nukes launched before the air strikes got them.



I don’t think there is any doubt that a nuclear strike against Japan would yield anything but a nuclear retaliation against the perpetrator, if for no other reason than it is impossible to nuke Japan without directly nuking US forces.



And anyone lecturing them about it is basically a virgin talking about the evils of sex, unless you know anyone who has been through a general nuclear war lately. As far as real world comparisons go, who ends up looking like the ****** (assuming you’re not an actual virgin, in which case your opinion is meaningless).

“Winning” a nuclear war is all relative, obviously if one starts it is the military’s job to bring about the best possible conclusion, as it is in conventional warfare as well. I am not sure why you believe the best possible has to in any way be synonymous with good in the slightest.

And the prosecution of modern conventional warfare is not hindered because of the expense of waging it (assumed nukes are abolished). It becomes impossible because states are not willing to inflict the pain on a population nessecary to make them give up. Which is a good thing, and I find is more a development of the military psych than the civilian one. There is no such thing as a clean, smart, or anything other than nasty war.

In any case, I can see almost no case in which an accidental launch can plausibly lead to general nuclear war. What power today could have any strategic reason to launch ONE nuke, or two, or even twelve? If you cross that threshold, you are going to dish out all the damage you can as fast as you can, especially in the case of the major nuclear powers. One ICBM from Russia is obviously going to make American leaders raise an eyebrow and give each other a WTF? Especially if that nuke is not followed by a corresponding conventional military activity increase.

As far as the “computer error” thing, that is just Hollywood. Long before a Russian nuke hits our missile fields in the Dakotas and MidWest, there would be confirmed nuke hits in Hawaii and Alaska, against our deployed naval forces in the North Atlantic, and all along our coasts from SLBMs. In other words, before it is even possible to get our ICBMs off the ground, there will be no doubt whether the attack is real.

Read Red Star Rouge.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


I stopped reading the thread with this post. You are a nut bag. You sum up all of the incorrect thinking that exists in a neat warm and fuzzy pink and perfume stinking nut bag.

War is inevitable and will occur on a massive scale and will encompass both nuke and conventional components. Technology can't and never will eliminate the reasons that wars exist and people will never evolve past the primal: greed, lust, fear, hatred.

In other words, people act irrationally and ALWAYS WILL.

That's incredibly arrogant. You are not only making a prediction that is impossible to back up with relevant facts but you are calling someone a totally irrelevant nut bag just for making a contrary prediction. Greed, lust, fear, and hatred are very powerful and widespread motivations but even they are powerless to motivate someone to do something they think is obviously self destructive. I don't care how greedy someone is, you're not going to be able to get them to blow their brains out for any amount of money.


It just might be possible that massive total war has become so costly that it can no longer appeal to the greed, lust, fear, and hatred in the leaders of powerful countries.

Now certainly that notion is unproven but by no means is it absurd.

[Flip McWho]

Thats the thing. Any nuclear war, no matter how wide spread or limited will just result in the victor ruling over a new wonderfully flat car park and the condemnation of the rest of the world. All parties involved will be worse off then when it all started. Everybody knows this, its an entirely logical connection to make

Conventional war is just too costly now, against anything thats second world and above. Costly in terms of life, finanace, industy whatever. Both countries will be worse off than before. They'll be nothing left to add to the victor country. Secondly who the hell nowadays takes over a territory for the sake of adding it to their holdings. Conquest is dead.

The only wars that can be fought now is limited ones against nations that are lacking in the defensive areas (3rd world countries mainly). Even so easily being able to get guns means that when you do you'll meet local resistence anyways.

Not to mention nowadays you need a good reason to go to war. You have to give reasons. The international community (for what its worth) needs reasons. Countries can't just up and war now.

What people and states need to realise is that war as a state vs state thing is virtually obsolete now. Its no longer viable, except against countries that don't really matter. The threat that states face now is pretty much terrorism but this'll never be won till a world govt can do something about it.

Violence begats violence and people like Capt Dizle just keep fulfilling the prophecy.