I'm starting to get the heebie geebies reading these last two posts :o

:lol:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." ~ Albert EInstein

Not sure how long an all out nukefest would last, maybe days, maybe weeks. Most likely not months though. Kinda depends whose nuking who and is the other guy nuking back.

And generally about nukes, I know everyone is supposed to fear nukes etc. and that they are a kind of joker up the sleeve that some countries have. However lately I've started to think that most of the countries with the nuclear weapons might actually be more or less bluffing. They would not know what exactly would happen if they pushed those buttons. Maybe the missiles would blow up in their silos, who knows. The other guy might be able to shoot them down. Or the missiles wouldn't be that powerful in the end, the effects could be much more limited then they think etc.

Thing is, the so called balance of terror that nukes are supposed to bring is slowly beginning to erode. People are less and less afraid of them all the time. Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened a long time ago, or so people think. A country gets nukes and says "we will use them", eventually someone will say "well go ahead then". Also, under the guise of nukes being the ultimate weapon it makes the conventional weapons look tame and make their use more acceptable. 'Small, nuke-free wars' might take place more easily.

So I guess I'm saying that although nukes are supposed to bring a kind of sense of peace to the world their influence might actually be the opposite, they erode peoples desire for peace and make small conflicts more common etc. Total disarmament might be the key but so far no dice in that department.

Well, I guess when one has lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation all their lives, the fear wears off somewhat...

What is scarier to me, is not nuclear war, it's a biological war...:shifty:

Putin isnt suicidal, he may have fantasies of being the new Peter the Great and some personality disorders, but im positive that starting a nuclear winter isnt a fantasy of his.

Suicidal is a crazy thought too, uh?

What about these crazy thoughts:

Some of these are over a year old, but take a look at the inside of a mad man (so to speak)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-Europe.html

Quote:

President Vladimir Putin has sent a chilling message to world leaders on the eve of the GB summit with a threat to aim Russian nuclear missiles at European cities for the first time since the Cold War. In comments that seemed calculated to cause consternation and division at Wednesday's meeting in Germany, the Russian leader said that American plans to erect a missile defence shield in Europe had left him with no choice but to retaliate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ins-anger.html

Quote:

Russia is fiercely opposed to the eastward expansion of Nato. George Bush backs NATO membership of Ukraine and Georgia despite Putin's anger

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../INJUV6IU3.DTL

Quote:

It doesn't take much to rile Vladimir Putin, the irascible, autocratic Russian leader. But nothing the Bush administration has done in the last seven years has angered Putin more than the proposal to base anti-missile...

http://www.google.com/search?q=Putin...e7&rlz=1I7DKUS

Quote:

Vladimir V. Putin transferred the customs service from the control of ... two of the senators now facing recall, causing Mr. Putin's anger. ...

Sure, his personality raises threats in certain situations. I would still consider Russian theories in geopolitics a bigger threat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin

I think maybe Israel is a more likely candidate to use nukes than Russia. Hell, even the US might at one point think that rather then looking for volunteers it's cheaper to just nuke the Middle-East.

DEFCON
 

Ah DEFCON, Everybody dies. Great game.