FAQ
It is currently Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:46 pm


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

Author Message
Rory
Post  Post subject: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:52 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
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


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:14 am
User avatar

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

Offline
Feel free to explain your reasoning below, as well

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:34 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
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)


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:07 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 507

Offline
Rory wrote:
Feel free to explain your reasoning below, as well

I'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.


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:28 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
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.

Image

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


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:38 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 507

Offline
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.

Image

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.


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:23 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 249
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
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.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:38 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
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 workforce
besides, the super-rich are not inconvenienced by overpopulation, if they can afford their own tropical island or giant yacht

even 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 world

tbh 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)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:49 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
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


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:43 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
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


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:58 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
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


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:02 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
as iNow said, we're discussing nuclear war and its likelihood here
that's what I responded to when I replied to the poll

if 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)


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:14 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
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


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:04 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
OK then

show evidence that (a) the western economies are about to collapse; and (b) this collapse will trigger the nuclear option

neither (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)


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:40 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
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 Shiller

http://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


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:54 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 507

Offline
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 Shiller

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-29/robert-shiller-unlike-1929-time-everything-stocks-bonds-and-housing-overvalued

Why 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.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:59 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
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 Shiller

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-29/robert-shiller-unlike-1929-time-everything-stocks-bonds-and-housing-overvalued


so 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 economies
you 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)


Top
wireless
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:32 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 291

Offline
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.


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:50 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
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


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: Nuclear WWIII  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:17 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 249
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
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.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

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


Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy