d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > May 13th Is Said To Be The Start Of Ww3 > I Requested That Day Off
Prev123411Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 10,281
Joined: Jan 7 2015
Gold: Locked
Warn: 60%
Apr 22 2017 02:58pm
Quote (Thomas Cross @ Apr 22 2017 03:55pm)
we could wipe off most of the life from the surface of Earth, not just ourselves. :Y


That's a stretch.
Member
Posts: 37,565
Joined: Jul 20 2012
Gold: 301.69
Warn: 100%
Apr 22 2017 03:01pm
Quote (Thomas Cross @ Apr 23 2017 08:55am)
There aren't too much (or I could say any) country would benefit from a third world war, so they will avoid it. They pulling eachother, yes. But a WW would be the end of human civilization, if not the whole mankind would extinct. In a full scale WW hidrogen bombs would fly at daily basis and that wouldn't be the worst thing... chemical and biological weapons, dirty bombs, tectonic/earthquake bombs, project Pluto style insane warmachines... we could wipe off most of the life from the surface of Earth, not just ourselves. :Y


I'm not sure why this is a common belief, it's strange.

The current nuclear stock pile is tiny compared to what it was, and the amount of power to create a nuclear winter is much much more than what is generally accepted.

Even a nuclear conflict between two large countries is not likely to impact others except for things like fallout drift. The MAD concept of mutual assured destruction had been shown through studies and examples like the Cuban missile crisis to be inaccurate as individuals are still required to make those decisions and will often not launch, even when directly ordered to.
Member
Posts: 10,281
Joined: Jan 7 2015
Gold: Locked
Warn: 60%
Apr 22 2017 03:04pm
Quote (SenorNZ @ Apr 22 2017 04:01pm)
individuals are still required to make those decisions and will often not launch, even when directly ordered to.


It's pretty easy to make that decision when your country's population has been partially vaporized along with every city already and you're held up in NORAD or someplace similar knowing you're the only one who can avenge your fallen family/friends/countrymen. I think MAD works. We never nuked cuba. People don't need to be ordered to launch in that situation they'll want to.

This post was edited by DCSS on Apr 22 2017 03:10pm
Member
Posts: 726
Joined: Mar 28 2017
Gold: 0.03
Apr 22 2017 03:08pm
why may 13th?
Member
Posts: 37,565
Joined: Jul 20 2012
Gold: 301.69
Warn: 100%
Apr 22 2017 03:10pm
Quote (DCSS @ Apr 23 2017 09:04am)
It's pretty easy to make that decision when your country's population has been partially vaporized along with every city already and you're held up in NORAD or someplace similar knowing you're the only one who can avenge your fallen family/friends/countrymen. I think MAD works. We never nuked cuba.


Are you talking from experience?

I choose to believe research conducted on people who are actually in those situations over you thinking it would be easy. Shooting a single person is not easy, pushing a button to wipe out hundreds of thousands would be easy? OK tough guy.

You never nuked Cuba? Really? Thanks for the info...
There's plenty to read around the crisis and it's particularly interesting reading accounts of people who were there and responsible, by all accounts is far from "easy".

Plus the whole point of mutually assured destruction is that you launch when you detect incoming missiles. It's not a response to having cities vaporized.

Judging by your post I don't care if you think it works because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Member
Posts: 21,556
Joined: Jul 3 2011
Gold: 56,000.69
Apr 22 2017 03:12pm
Quote (SenorNZ @ Apr 22 2017 03:10pm)
Are you talking from experience?

I choose to believe research conducted on people who are actually in those situations over you thinking it would be easy. Shooting a single person is not easy, pushing a button to wipe out hundreds of thousands would be easy? OK tough guy.

You never nuked Cuba? Really? Thanks for the info...
There's plenty to read around the crisis and it's particularly interesting reading accounts of people who were there and responsible, by all accounts is far from "easy".

Plus the whole point of mutually assured destruction is that you launch when you detect incoming missiles. It's not a response to having cities vaporized.

Judging by your post I don't care if you think it works because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


Fixed
Member
Posts: 56,283
Joined: Jul 27 2007
Gold: 6.00
Apr 22 2017 03:26pm
im a good hour drive away from the state of NY and vermont so im safe
Member
Posts: 41,463
Joined: Jul 9 2005
Gold: 4,673.69
Apr 22 2017 03:30pm
Quote (SenorNZ @ 22 Apr 2017 23:01)
I'm not sure why this is a common belief, it's strange.

The current nuclear stock pile is tiny compared to what it was, and the amount of power to create a nuclear winter is much much more than what is generally accepted.

Even a nuclear conflict between two large countries is not likely to impact others except for things like fallout drift. The MAD concept of mutual assured destruction had been shown through studies and examples like the Cuban missile crisis to be inaccurate as individuals are still required to make those decisions and will often not launch, even when directly ordered to.


True, but you didn't talk about biological weapons. There are dozens of highly infectious viruses,bacteria, fungus etc released at multiple locations in the same time, would wipe out most of the population, and some bacteria and most of the fungus stays there hibernated themselves for decades! There was an Anthrax weapon test on Gruinnard island in Scotland, and It was in quaranteen for fifty years.
Quote
Decontamination[edit]
Starting in 1986 a determined effort was made to decontaminate the island, with 280 tonnes of formaldehyde solution diluted in seawater being sprayed over all 196 hectares of the 2km long*1 km wide island and the worst-contaminated topsoil around the dispersal site being removed.
They could release modified versions of the H1N1, Foot and Mouth disease, etc, killing all the livestock causing worldwide famine like no one before... We might don't have enough nukes to make a nuclear winter, but if they hit the Yellowstone Super Volcanoe with a few strong enough tectonic bomb, it could start the eruption, it is already like 50k years late. It will cause a "Nucler winter" without the radiation. And I didn't talk about the big guns yet :) They can hit the icecapes to crack it up to smaller pieces to raise the sea level and further destabilizing the climate... Sweet Summer Child, if nukes start to fly, there won't be anything stop the human imagination find new and better ways killing eachother :)
Member
Posts: 37,565
Joined: Jul 20 2012
Gold: 301.69
Warn: 100%
Apr 22 2017 03:31pm
Quote (Thomas Cross @ Apr 23 2017 09:30am)
True, but you didn't talk about biological weapons. There are dozens of highly infectious viruses,bacteria, fungus etc released at multiple locations in the same time, would wipe out most of the population, and some bacteria and most of the fungus stays there hibernated themselves for decades! There was an Anthrax weapon test on Gruinnard island in Scotland, and It was in quaranteen for fifty years. They could release modified versions of the H1N1, Foot and Mouth disease, etc, killing all the livestock causing worldwide famine like no one before... We might don't have enough nukes to make a nuclear winter, but if they hit the Yellowstone Super Volcanoe with a few strong enough tectonic bomb, it could start the eruption, it is already like 50k years late. It will cause a "Nucler winter" without the radiation. And I didn't talk about the big guns yet :) They can hit the icecapes to crack it up to smaller pieces to raise the sea level and further destabilizing the climate... Sweet Summer Child, if nukes start to fly, there won't be anything stop the human imagination find new and better ways killing eachother :)


I would be much more scared of chemical weapons or dirty bombs than actual nuclear warheads.
Member
Posts: 10,281
Joined: Jan 7 2015
Gold: Locked
Warn: 60%
Apr 22 2017 03:33pm
Quote (SenorNZ @ Apr 22 2017 04:10pm)
Are you talking from experience?

I choose to believe research conducted on people who are actually in those situations over you thinking it would be easy. Shooting a single person is not easy, pushing a button to wipe out hundreds of thousands would be easy? OK tough guy.

You never nuked Cuba? Really? Thanks for the info...
There's plenty to read around the crisis and it's particularly interesting reading accounts of people who were there and responsible, by all accounts is far from "easy".

Plus the whole point of mutually assured destruction is that you launch when you detect incoming missiles. It's not a response to having cities vaporized.

Judging by your post I don't care if you think it works because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


Bro the disconnect between what you're doing and what's happening makes it easier... that's why suicide rates are so high, guns make it easy. the guys in the planes that bombed hiroshima and nagasaki didn't have to see people dying up close.

I don't think there are many people that would hesitate to fire back at a country that already unloaded its arsenal onto theirs after the fact.

This post was edited by DCSS on Apr 22 2017 03:34pm
Go Back To General Chat Topic List
Prev123411Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll