What do my fellow Cred Forumsitical philosophers think about this? Do you think that the powers that be will push us into WW3 to consolidate power after the war and to justify increasing their control over their citizens? Do you think that the tensions between nations will just escalate into a further series of proxy wars? I sometimes wonder if MAD will be rendered obsolete by technological advancements by one country that allows them to disable other countries nuclear weapons or strike first significantly faster. However when I think about all of the military bases, bombers and submarines with nukes in them it seems unlikely that even if a country's military devised a way to say, disable all of country x's nukes that they wouldn't have other ways to retaliate. I look at the news and over the past several years I've become increasingly concerned that the world is inevitably heading towards more conflict and war whether that is in the form of proxy wars, state sponsored terrorism against enemies, or WW3 I can't see global tensions deescalating by themselves in the upcoming years.
Is WW3 possible in a world with MAD?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
WW3 due in 2020. It will purge all the cities, where the liberals live.
The countryside will repopulate the human genetic tree.
WW3 is humanity's last hope.
All memes aside what do you really think?
World War 3 or Civil War in 2020. It's the American war cycle every 80 years. And it is going to make WW2 look like child's play.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see WW3 by 2020 or sooner. Given the boiling pot that is the South China Sea and not to mention that the whole middle east is one big powder keg. I could see Southern states trying to secede but if that does happen I'd imagine it's a little farther out maybe 10-15 years from now. Or maybe if there's another major terrorist attack and the government in the next few years and the government takes that opportunity to become more restrictive then I could see civil war happening in under 10 years.
>and the government in the next few years and the government takes that opportunity to become more restrictive
*and the government takes that opportunity...
The key is to make sure you are not there when the nuke detonates. Get out of the cities before 2020.
that isn't a very viable plan for me. Nuclear war isn't certain to happen in my lifetime even if I think it's very likely and even if it's inevitable I have no way of knowing when it will happen. I don't have enough money to buy a plot of land in the middle of nowhere or the skills to be completely self sustaining while living off the grid.
Related question: do you think it is possible for 2 nuclear powers to engage in limited war without going MAD on eachother?
Ww3 will most certainly happen when essential resources become scarce to the point of destroying nation states. It will be an all out conflict of destruction where the losing side submits completely, just like ww2.
Well, you certainly won't need money where you are going.
>thinking MAD is a thing
Only a retard would believe that or think that there's no such thing as acceptable loses. Read up on NUTS or stop by any OPpenheimer thread in /k/.
Its actually more dependent on the ABM system of every country since the USSR fell apart and the USA disregarged the ABMT.
Its all about those mobile battalions that carry ABM systems now.
Its already being done through proxy wars.
Alternatively if the side that is winning doesnt go completely scorched earth and wins a conventional engagement gaining the upper hand and opening up lines for diplomacy. Its really dependent on if the losing side is actually willing to lose.
Where did you get this pic? Which leak?
never mind, found the pdf, it's thinking like that that ensures a WW3.
The proxy wars you see now are jockeying for position before the breaking point. The simple fact of the matter is that resources will one day be depleted. There will be all out destruction of human life until a victor can claim the share of resources left that are needed, or just all out destruction if the resources aren't there.
What do you think ww2 was?
It's possible but extremely dangerous because the longer it goes on the bigger the temptation to use the nuke will be
This. Or I guess if a country did the ultimate Blitzkrieg, by invading the other nation so fast that they could secure the enemy's nuclear silos before the pulled the trigger.
In theory, No. The us is the only country I'd say that's guarenteed to win any wars, and with all our strategic islands, untapped resources, and in general more military spending, it's a fools errand to fight against us, and our government is full of cucks who don't want war. But, realistically, there's no way to say for sure. If there is a war, I doubt world war status, as communist Asia and Russia don't have many proxy countries to start a war against us, and I doubt they'd outright do it, so realistically it's a world war, except most of the countries are against the middle east. Anything on a smaller scale than what I just described could possibly happen, but your talking about WW3 and I don't think it's a realistically or theoretically possible.
I wasn't considering proxy wars, more like a border skirmish or something similar that snowballs into someting bigger.
I believe that's inevitable. If one side is losing badly they will just say "fuck it" and lauch 'em all, and the only way to prevent this is to nuke them first. So both sides have an incentive to escalate with full force at the first opportunity they get.
There are 40 wars being fought around the world right now. This is already a world war. The war on Terror is a world war. Will it go nuclear? Perhaps. It depends on a lot of things.
The problem with nuclear war, is the following nuclear winter. Which will make drop surface temperatures by 10 C for decades, causing another ice age.
To cause such an effect, you merely need to detonated 3% of the world's nukes. A war between Pakistan a Pooinlooland would suffice.
>Southern states leaving the USA
>Only 17% of Texans think independence would be good
If this actually happened, any state that left would be pretty fucked
proxy wars, currency wars, cyber wars. No world wars though
Yes, thank our advanced missile defences
The war on terror is a world war.
Not in the Word War 1 or 2 sense of the word
Not. I think he meant more regular actions, not irregular
I forgot to mention civil wars of course. I think Russia and the US are on a good path for one
How's it any different? There are 40 wars being fought right now. (according to Jean-Claude Junckers). The 7 years' war was also a world war.
en.wikipedia.org
It sure looks that way yeah.
No states are at war with each other, so no.
Al Qaeda, ISIL, Boku Haram, Hezbollah are not states.
>How's it any different
No jew suffered in them therefore it's not a real war.
yes
MAD with Russia ended with the invention of new weaponry and the creation of the so-called missile shield. Why do you think they are pushing so hard with a war with Russia?
Not in the Cred Forums sense of the word, gotcha :^)
The way I figure it, Russia has probably smuggled a few nukes into the U.S. across the Mexican border. If Hillary starts to push on Putin he'll detonate them. Putin has already told the Russian people to prepare for war if Clinton gets elected and they've been building massive fallout shelters in Russia.
It's common and conventional wisdom among strategic thinkers that nuclear weapons have made 'great power' war impossible on the grounds that it would be too destructive. Although, as Robert Kagan points out in 'The World America Made' the conventional wisdom of the early 20th century up until 1914 was spouting the same message. Instead of nuclear weapons it was the industrial revolution that had theoretically made warfare among the great powers impossible as it would be too costly. The Great War happened anyway.
A third world war could certainly happen. While it may not be a "Day After" style nuclear holocaust, it could certainly involved limited use of nuclear weapons.
What is worse, losing a remote outpost to a tactical nuke, or losing you capital to conventional artillery?
From a logical standpoint, tactical nukes shoudn't be a "red line", but I honestly doubt they would be used in a conventional war.
They're working hard on developing hypersonic missiles and the railgun tech could make it possible to launch a nuke undetected (ala mgs1).
Holy crap Akira was right! The Olympics will take place in a crater
That scenario is largely irrelevant for the US as no foreign artillery can reach Washington D.C. and there is no nation that could conceivably mount an invasion.
Also, any conventional war where tactical nukes are used is no longer conventional. If a nation has tactical nukes there's nothing against them developing larger devices.
Fair point about tactical nukes. If they can only be used in a full nuclear war, it doesn't make sense to waste fissile material when conventional bombs can do the same job. Better to save it for a full size nuke.