Will the world get destroyed by nukes in the foreseeable future

Author: Alec ,

Posts

Total: 15
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
I don't think the world is going to get nuked.  Mutually Assured Destruction seems like it's too big of a fear for any country to nuke another.  We made it this far.  I think all of the world's nukes will get destroyed before the world it's self does.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Alec
if it happens no one will ever know......I dunno if Putin was terminally ill he may want to take the rest of the world with him, I could see that.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 709
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
--> @Alec
It's definitely going to happen at some point, maybe not the whole world, but if our way of addressing conflict doesn't change, at least one nation is going to get devestated, potentially a sizeable portion of the northern hemisphere.

KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
It's almost happened because of faulty computer chips, and I have no doubt it could still end humanity. 
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
We will not survive for much longer, and by that, I mean the compared to how long the U.S. has been a country for. Could be as early as right now and we will probably only be able to last until 2100 at best. We better get snappy invent nigh indestructible, warm oxygen homes at Mars otherwise.

Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 709
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
--> @KingLaddy01
The green freak stuff may prove to be imperative to addressing unequal distribution of resources over the next couple hundred years.  Hopefully the countries getting bombed and laid to waste have distributed property.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 709
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
--> @Alec

Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
One problem is that with technology nukes are getting faster and faster. One day we might have near-luminal speed weapons capable of nuclear-level destruction. The only way to counter this would be computer systems fast enough to launch a second hand strike before the super-fast weapons could destroy these (the speed required of this system would make it totally independent of human commanders during actual nuclear contingencies).That means they'd have to have to reach the point where one microsecond on its sensors of something resembling a nuclear attack would be enough to set off all of its weapons, deployed at the speed of light, in all likelihood unable to be recalled before reaching their targets. A tiny little glitch could set off an apocalypse. One moment we'd all be minding our own business and then like twenty minutes later there'd be no mammalian life left on the planet.
Scary crap. Fortunately something of the severity that I just described shouldn't be the case for another half century at least, hopefully.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
The only way to prevent this would be for nuclear countries to invest in better survivability platforms rather than prioritizing speed of retaliation, which would give the systems time to second guess their own decisions and perhaps prevent a catastrophe. It'd also help for countries to handicap the speed of their own nukes, but that's probably not going to happen, simply because in that case ABM capabilities would outstrip these and render their arsenals obsolete.

Examples of survivability platforms would be nuclear submarines, large numbers of warheads and delivery vehicles scattered over a large area (and especially when employing mobile launchers), nuclear command-and-control bunkers deep within the earth/mountains, etc.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,850
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @Swagnarok
Both America and Russia have nukes that would not (can not) be destroyed in a full nuclear attack, and can launch on their own. So it isn't just speed, its also durability.

9 days later

IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 305
1
1
4
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
1
1
4
No, it's not the nuclear bombs which will destroy the world, but it's the feminism and the progresism that will do so.

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @IlDiavolo
Oh dear how impossibly fearful, it is to laugh. Or was that satire?
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 305
1
1
4
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
1
1
4
--> @disgusted
Have you seen the last deal of "the United Nations" on inmigration? Not a satire at all.     

Il Diavolo
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 572
2
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
2
2
7
Imagine not wanting this world to end in nuclear hellfire.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @ResurgetExFavilla
Most people don't want the world to end by nukes.  It's about whether or not you think it will happen.