I voted no because, given how lethal war technology is today, a global conflict would mean the end of civilisation. Period. And, besides that, any global conflict would end within hours now - just the time for nukes to reach their targets. The times of mobilising a country's army in two weeks and then waging a world war for some 4-5 years are over. Now countries have their armies already in place. Just give them the order and they react.
If a conflict becomes global, then global means also using the most lethal weapons, as well. And nobody - even politicians - would be that crazy to start something that will end into nukes. This was also the case at the peak of the cold war, and even then they were rational enough not to start the apocalypse.
Today's submarines are just means of intimidation and they will only be used - as they have already been - in local conflicts, with limited scope and traditional (non-nuke) weapons.
If anything global starts, then may God help us. The submarine boys would have no home to return to. Remember that great movie "On the beach"?
|