Will the world get destroyed by nukes in the foreseeable future

Author: Alec ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 15
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    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 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @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 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @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 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 411
    0
    1
    2
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    KingLaddy01
    It's almost happened because of faulty computer chips, and I have no doubt it could still end humanity. 
  • KingLaddy01
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 411
    0
    1
    2
    KingLaddy01 avatar
    KingLaddy01
    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 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @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 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @Alec

  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    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 avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    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 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @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.
  • IlDiavolo
    IlDiavolo avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 305
    1
    1
    4
    IlDiavolo avatar
    IlDiavolo
    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 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @IlDiavolo
    Oh dear how impossibly fearful, it is to laugh. Or was that satire?
  • IlDiavolo
    IlDiavolo avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 305
    1
    1
    4
    IlDiavolo avatar
    IlDiavolo
    --> @disgusted
    Have you seen the last deal of "the United Nations" on inmigration? Not a satire at all.     

    Il Diavolo
  • ResurgetExFavilla
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 556
    2
    2
    7
    ResurgetExFavilla avatar
    ResurgetExFavilla
    Imagine not wanting this world to end in nuclear hellfire.
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @ResurgetExFavilla
    Most people don't want the world to end by nukes.  It's about whether or not you think it will happen.