When will the nuclear war end game happen?
Will it actually ever happen?
>>73566571
Bump
>>73566571
>Will it actually ever happen?
I don't see how. It would really hinder on the ruling elite's comfort in the long run.
Nuclear war isn't going to happen while the US still stands. Oil aside, this is the reason we're so zealous about projecting ourselves across the globe.
>>73567005
not really. everyone imagines that nuclear war omgz is like this massive explosion where the whole world erupts. that is not how nuclear weapons work.. nagasaki and hiroshima are still islands that exist. the blasts are controlled within a certain measure
hypothetically if the worst of the worst theories about the elite are correct and they are all NWO/jooz/reptilian/chinese and colluding together then what is to stop them from controlling a blast over a region to send a political message. it would be nothing to them
>>73566571
October 27 2077.
That is when. Prepare
>>73566571
when Muslims get real nukes (not the props Pakis were given to scare Poos with)
>>73567005
it will happen nigger. humans are retarded, all you need is an easily triggered moron
>>73567301
>send a political message
Why? Their greatest accomplishment is to get people to willfully cooperate. The last thing they want is disorder.
>>73567301
The WW2 atomic bombs were extremely weak compared to modern nuclear weapons. Look up yields of nukes now and compare to the Fat Boy bomb. Global thermonuclear war would definitely annihilate human civilization; perhaps even destroy life on earth or at least cause a mass extinction.
>>73567301
The real issue will be from the supposed "nuclear winter" rather than the initial blasts
>>73567572
Heh, yeah, the accident / out-of-control escalation scenarios are always a risk. It seems like the MAD doctrine has been working very well and is stable, but it doesn't completely prevent accidents. But somehow everyone seem to have become much less trigger happy recently. Won't necessarily stay that way though.
>>73567465
Memes, memes never change...
>>73567823
it's very likely humans in some form or another have been through nuclear winters or similar wmd-induced destructions already
>>73566571
nukes will be thrown but not everywhere like tinfoil hats think
>>73567913
>nuclear winter
Probably real to some extent. But it may have been exaggerated as part of US propaganda.
The US had an offensive strategy. The USSR had somewhat of a defensive strategy (but I think they gave up on that not after long) and thought they could survive it (at first). So it was in the US' best interest for everyone to believe that their counter-attack would devastate the whole world.
>>73567572
>humans are retarded
/thread
>>73568216
George Noory, plz go
>>73568216
Nah, I think it's the first time we got this far before feminism collapsed technological societies.
>>73568216
How is that "very likely"? I would say quite the opposite.
You do know Ancient Aliens isn't for real, right?
>>73568426
There's a resident nuclear expert on /k/ that explains why most nuclear winter scenarios are overblown to deter nuclear conflict.
In actuality you'd need to displace a small mountain worth of material to have a global impact in climate.
A lot of modern nukes detonate above the "impact site" for this reason. (Less fallout)
>>73566571
Bump
>>73570198
Eh, interesting. I remember first reading about Crichton questioning the nuclear winter scenario (and people hinting him to STFU). kek.
I was never sure about any of that though...
>>73570198
He's a liar
>>73567301
Well the invention of nuclear weapons has resulted in Nuclear deterrence and what has been called "the long peace" as there has been no wars between great powers since WW2 like we used to see.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the cold war resulted in the idea of mutually assured destruction. That two nuclear powers would have more then enough power to destroy each other in a matter of hours. Even without an even match a nation that still has nuclear weaponry could deliver a crippling blow to another nation. Hence why we don't see nations with nuclear weapons directly fighting each other.
The ruling elite didn't realize this until it was too late. There problem is that they too are mortal and nuclear weapons are the one thing that spooks them. If a nation is destroyed then they have no power. What good will it do them if they survive and no one else is left?
So since the end of the cold war most advances haven't been in nuclear weapons but in how to stop them before they hit. So nowadays we see missile defense programs like the strategic defense initiative and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense
>>73567913
I imagine that most of the explosions would be airblasts since they leave way less fallout. And airblasts don't particularly throw up much debris either
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bCuuo6b.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>73566571
>Nuclear War
>End Game
Nuclear war would be the beginning of World War 3, anon. Not the end. There would be a century or more of blood-shed that would follow.
>>73566571
last bump
Bump. Nukes are my biggest fear, but for some reason, I want them to fly. Jerk me off and terrify me, /pol/. Choke me a little. I like that.
>>73572238
You shouldn't have asked like that...
We're not very secure; you scared us off more than nukes.
