It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:09 am

Likelihood of nuclear WWIII
 10 0 0% 9 0 0% 8 0 0% 7 1 14% 6 0 0% 5 0 0% 4 0 0% 3 3 43% 2 1 14% 1 2 29%

 20 posts • Page 1 of 1
Author Message
Rory
 Post subject: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:52 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 How likely, on a scale of 1-10 - with 1 being exceedingly unlikely and 10 being an absolute certainty - is nuclear world war 3 in the next 5-10 years? _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:14 am

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 Feel free to explain your reasoning below, as well _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
marnixR
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:34 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

 having lived through the Kennedy and Reagan eras, when there there was a genuine prospect of a nuclear WW3, I think the present danger is less than imminent - unless the rapprochement between Trump and Putin turns sour _________________"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)
paleoichneum
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:07 pm

Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 509

 Rory wrote:Feel free to explain your reasoning below, as wellI'm interested first in why you feel how you do on the subject _________________The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:28 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 Because, the super rich are immensely powerful and accustomed to getting their own way. Materially, they have everything they could ever possibly need. Except, the future of the planet is threatened by over-population and global warming. A straightforward "solution", from their perspective, would be a controlled/strategic nuclear war. Their families will be fine, they have underground bunkers and supplies to last generations into the future. I'm not worried from the standpoint of nationality; the global elites destroyed the relevance of national identity long ago. I am worried about the 1% deciding they need more lebensraum. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
paleoichneum
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:38 pm

Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 509

 Rory wrote:Because, the super rich are immensely powerful and accustomed to getting their own way. Materially, they have everything they could ever possibly need. Except, the future of the planet is threatened by over-population and global warming. A straightforward "solution", from their perspective, would be a controlled/strategic nuclear war. Their families will be fine, they have underground bunkers and supplies to last generations into the future. I'm not worried from the standpoint of nationality; the global elites destroyed the relevance of national identity long ago. I am worried about the 1% deciding they need more lebensraum.Show that this has any relationship to reality.  in the bank does NOT make someone an emotionless bastard that thinks "I'll just nuke away those with less money then me".You're showing your personal vitriol again Rory. _________________The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
Lynx_Fox
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:23 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 251
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

 Having lived through much of the cold war (and served during its last years), I think the chances are almost non-existent of WWIII. Despite media's depictions and imagery's impact of people perceptions the reality over the past few decades there's been huge progress across the world with sharp reductions of wars, overall violence coupled with dramatically improved living conditions, interconnected economies and spreading of representative governments. I could see a limited engagement, though, like use of tactical nukes to bunker bust a specific military facility or capability. And I chucked at mostly liberal shock when Trump suggested we need to improve our nuke capability, something recommended and agreed on by several administrations as well as him simply iterating US policy for more than half a century that the US asserts it has nuclear first strike option.
marnixR
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:38 am

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

 Rory wrote:Because, the super rich are immensely powerful and accustomed to getting their own way. Materially, they have everything they could ever possibly need. Except, the future of the planet is threatened by over-population and global warming. A straightforward "solution", from their perspective, would be a controlled/strategic nuclear war.who makes their money from global warming, do you think, and who needs consumers to sell their wares to ?plus, even the super-rich need manpower for their workforcebesides, the super-rich are not inconvenienced by overpopulation, if they can afford their own tropical island or giant yachteven a limited nuclear war would to be messy for them to gamble on having a world suitable for them to maintain their lifestyle - while it is true that in the current world the super-rich can afford to live in their own bubble, that bubble would not be of the same quality in a nuclear-damaged worldtbh it's far more likely that someone who doesn't have anything to lose, like North Korea, starts the process by nuking South Korea or Japan, and then the superpowers like China and the US feel they have to step in to protect their side _________________"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:49 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

 In addition to marnix' point, those people generally became rich due to the way the current world operates. Most are in no hurry to throw operation of the current world into complete chaos, which millions of deaths by nukes would surely do. Such an approach would be detrimental to how they've become so successful in the first place. The rich tend to like stability so they can plan, not instability so they have to start all of the time from square one.The logic expressed above doesn't stand up to even remedial scrutiny. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:43 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 If Western economies are really at their end game, then the global elites no longer have need for destitute citizens, whom they would need to coddle and care for as during the Great Depression. If the Western economies collapse naturally then governments, corporate leaders and central bankers will be exposed as having wrecked - rather than fixed - the economy. Two advantages of ending the system this way: (i) the populace does not recognise the failure of their leaders, they're too distracted with war and "the enemy" (ii) the global elites can position themselves to profit from the downfall of the empire, and to be in place to resume their monopoly on power, once the war is over _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
iNow
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:58 pm

Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5729
Location: Iowa

 This is a thread about nuclear war. If you'd like to repurpose it to the economy, let me know and I'll move it to Business & Economics and leave a note / update the title to make clear the change in topic. _________________iNow"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
marnixR
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:02 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

 as iNow said, we're discussing nuclear war and its likelihood herethat's what I responded to when I replied to the pollif you want to make clear how the collapse of the western economies - something that is far from a cert - might lead to nuclear war, fine, but let's stick to the topic of the OP _________________"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:14 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 But what if the two are intimately connected? It's like, Biochemistry doesn't belong purely in the Biology section or the Chemistry section, it straddles the two. Reality doesn't exist in filofaxes _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
marnixR
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:04 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

 OK thenshow evidence that (a) the western economies are about to collapse; and (b) this collapse will trigger the nuclear optionneither (on their own or in combination) is obvious to me _________________"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:40 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 I'm not saying either is 100% certain, btw. Here's a start: 'Unlike 1929, this time everything - stocks, bonds and housing - is overvalued', Robert Shillerhttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-29/robert-shiller-unlike-1929-time-everything-stocks-bonds-and-housing-overvalued _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
paleoichneum
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:54 pm

Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 509

 Rory wrote:I'm not saying either is 100% certain, btw. Here's a start: 'Unlike 1929, this time everything - stocks, bonds and housing - is overvalued', Robert Shillerhttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-29/robert-shiller-unlike-1929-time-everything-stocks-bonds-and-housing-overvaluedWhy should we trust Zerohedge, they are terrible with reporting accuracy. See any science topic they claim to cover _________________The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
marnixR
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:59 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

 Rory wrote:I'm not saying either is 100% certain, btw. Here's a start: 'Unlike 1929, this time everything - stocks, bonds and housing - is overvalued', Robert Shillerhttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-29/robert-shiller-unlike-1929-time-everything-stocks-bonds-and-housing-overvaluedso even if there's a bubble n the US, and maybe we'll regret the brexit outcome in the UK, but that's still a long way off from a collapse of the western economiesyou really will have to do better than that to make your case _________________"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)
wireless
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:32 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 295

 Rory wrote:How likely, on a scale of 1-10 - with 1 being exceedingly unlikely and 10 being an absolute certainty - is nuclear world war 3 in the next 5-10 years? I have know idea on a scale of one to ten, how likely a WW3 would be in the next five to ten years. However a good starting point could be Israel taking on Iran. We then have Pakistan versus India, this could happen anytime. Pakistan could be overrun by the Taliban anytime. North Korea is an accident waiting to happen. Since the end of the Cold War, the world has become a more dangerous place. Donald Trump appears to want to work with Putin. In my opinion there is much to be gained by NATO working alongside the Russian Federation.
Rory
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:50 pm

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

 Agree, wireless Hillary's proposed no-fly zone in Syria and Obama's recent deployment of ground troops to the Russisn border in response to alleged (unproven) Russian "aggression" just gives me the impression that the Democrats are trying to provoke war. At the moment, Trump and the Republicans are the safer option. _________________If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim
Lynx_Fox
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:17 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 251
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

 wireless wrote: However a good starting point could be Israel taking on Iran. This is one of those frustrating issues for informed Americans...or at least ones that know a damn thing about Islam. Isreal isn't' Iran's target number one, Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other MUCH more--so much that's there's been a growing cooperative relationship between Saudi Arabia and Isreal over the past few decades. Being there's only one superpower, it's very unlikely even such a regional conflict would spread into a world war.
 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 20 posts • Page 1 of 1

Who is online
 Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forum