Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dcb
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"?
|
Actually the view that any global conflict will involve a total nuclear exchange is a little naive. whats the point of starting a war if you cant
win the prizes and what is a defence against the destruction of your nation destroying your nation. area denial is a valid tactic however when applied to homeland and population there is only so much even an irrational leader
will exchange, I realize spite happens but even in the least developed nuclear powers there are safeguards to prevent such an act of individual
spite. No there may be exchanges of varying types My bet is that the cookie goes to the guy that can develop the 12 kg conventional exploxive with a none radioactive yeild of say 1 kt and whoever controls the moon controls earth orbit and by implication and extension rules the earth.
but the only way I could see us destroying the entire thing is if we had
already lost to somebody other than us.