(23 January 2013, 23:55)BDG Wrote: (22 January 2013, 19:07)cryingfreeman Wrote: We're at much greater risk now of a general nuclear war than was ever the case during the Cold War due to the increased number of nations armed with nukes and thus a greater number of potential flashpoints. Yet everyone now thinks the only big threat is economic collapse or (if you're a mainstream thinker) so called terrorism.
The thing is, those not on the security council bar India do not really have the ability to do an any time any place anywhere attack as they do not have the delivery systems for it. India does have an ICBM would be able to reach China, probably hit Isreal and might be able to reach France. However, the odds of India attacking those countries - not worth bothering with.
Now, we may see a nuclear war on a local scale, most likely with NK chucking something nasty over the Sea of Japan. India and PK not likely, it would take PK to instigate and there are as it stands, enough high ranking military with enough sense not to let this happen.
Biggest threat to Europe would be if Israel was getting turned over and they decided to get spiteful and go all Sampson, however, I think that would not happen, better some Jews in the world and no Israel than the nothing.
We are certainly not looking at Cold War France + USA + UK V Russia and or China missile throwing match destroying everything everywhere, and this is why people put nukes to the back of their mind - any of those countries would only use nukes in a direct war against one of the others.
The only place they might fly from is NK, and if they did, China would make NK disappear in less than 2 hours.
A nuclear exchange is one thing and yes, we might see it. Global nuclear war - doubtful.
India and PK playing pass the destruction bomb? Not at all likely unless PK gets a taliban like government, but then, that government would use the nukes as a bargaining chip against others rather than throw them at India and then get wiped out by India and maybe others.
India and Pakistan have regional delivery capacities, but that's not quite the point. The point is that a conflict there could (in theory) spill over into something much wider and rapidly become a proxy war between NATO and Russia-China. In turn that could tip over into a full blown exchange.
I also don't believe Israel intends to ever use its "Samson Option". Current Israeli off-the-record doctrine is that retaliation is morally unjustifiable and pointless, whereas preemptive striking is, on the other hand, morally necessary should a clear and present threat emerge.
The current US military doctrine in regard to retaliation is to absorb a nuclear strike first, verify that detonations have taken place, seize the moral high ground in the western media (which presupposes a largely intact society still alive to be propagandised), and only then choose a retaliatory action - if any. However, that doesn't obviate the flip side, which is that the US reserves the right to initiate a preemptive first strike itself against an enemy or emerging threat.
The whole concept of deterrence, by the way, is not actually truly believed by any of the major powers as viable. "Deterrence is never truly credible", says vintage nuclear strategist, Thomas Schelling. And why? Because if an enemy initiates a first strike, then the target country's deterrent failed to deter.
Search
Calendar
Help
