- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- What will the next nuclear attack do?
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| What will the next nuclear attack do? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 20 2017, 09:57 PM (935 Views) | |
| + Steve | May 20 2017, 09:57 PM Post #1 |
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
How do you think the world will change if someone launches another nuclear attack? For instance if North Korea isn't just talking s*** and actually does attack someone. Do you think it could be a significant enough push for the rest of the world to make a stand and finally ditch them? Or could the opposite happen and more countries would see it as an easy solution to getting their own way? Discounting an all out nuclear apocalypse that is, obviously the world would change quite a bit there. As cynical as I am about humanity in general I must say, I'm very impressed that there's only been two nuclear attacks. But I do think the sheer gravity of what they can do has significantly waned, given that few people who saw the devastation are alive today. Interesting to imagine how it would go down in the modern world, imagine the kind of coverage it would have with the likes of the internet? The big question is, is another attack an eventuality or will we collectively come to our senses and lock them away/destroy them before anything happens? |
 Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
 |
 
|
| * Mitas | May 21 2017, 11:07 AM Post #2 |
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
|
For the world to collectively do away with nuclear weapons, we'd need every nation to buy into that and I just can't see that happening. Even if there was an official motion is proposed (or even passed), there would always be paranoia that another nation would renege on the agreement in secret. I just don't think there's enough trust between nations for it to be successful. In regards to whether another use of nuclear weapons is inevitable or not, it's hard to say. North Korea would be the easiest example to point towards, but any use of a nuclear bomb by them is basically signing their own death warrant as a country. The same goes for any nation using a nuclear weapon really. If you use one, you have to be ready to have one used on you. They really act more as deterrents than actual weapons (you can't use yours because I'll use mine), which probably means that the threat of a nuclear attack will always be in the air, but probably not likely they'll be used unless there's another large scale war. Or if a terrorist group somehow gets a hold of one, although I'm not sure if that possibility is only likely in movies. |
 "Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
|
|
|
| Copy_Ninja | May 21 2017, 11:19 AM Post #3 |
Novacane for the pain
|
Nah, it's pretty established in the public consciousness that a nuclear attack is going to wipe out life for wherever it lands. Creating nukes opened a Pandora's box. The nuclear powers will never get rid of them because there's always that possibility of another country creating them. They act as a deterrent the way things currently lie, no one will use one because they know they'll get hit in return if they do. Which is a good system until it fails, which might sound like a redundant statement but it's the best way of putting it. Because if it does fail, then the fallout is indescribable. As for NK, they won't use a nuke. No one wants to take military action there right now because the ramifications of that would be disastrous and no one would be able to handle it. From the probably millions that would die, to the refugees flooding in to SK and China who are not equipped to handle them to having a population that has essentially been brainwashed and isolated having to enter the rest of the world. But there would have to be a response if they attacked either South Korea or a US territory and that would spell an end to that regime. Though something has got to give with North Korea at some point. In all honesty we should probably be ashamed that we've let this go on for so long. Then again we ignore so much suffering in the world it becomes easier to drown it all out. |
 We'll never be those kids again
| |
|
|
|
| Billa | May 21 2017, 11:59 AM Post #4 |
Thala na Gethu!
|
Lol. If anythin, I bet US & dumbass Trump will be initiating the Nuclear Attack & the one they unleashed upon the so-called IS was mere "show-piece" I think should it happen (in case Trump went nuts & makes dumbass decision of which I believe he will in near future) most countries namely Russia, China, India, North Korea, most Middle East Countries would wreck havoc. Pride goes before fall would be the lesson of the century |
|
|
|
| + Steve | May 21 2017, 12:06 PM Post #5 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Just to clarify, North Korea using one was just an arbitrary example not really convinced either way they'd use one even if they could. I've thought about the deterrent thing a lot and one possibility that came to mind makes me think the next attack could make everyone wise up. Would an all out nuclear war really happen for anything less than America vs Russia/China/Any other big power? Let's say Britain gets rid of all it's nukes and has no deterrent besides allies. And then some country, for whatever reason, launches a nuclear attack against Britain. Said country being allied with China/Russia or whomever. The idea is that Britain's allies would then counterattack and the whole world would basically be screwed and that's generally the comfortable idea behind why it would never happen. But would it really go like that though? Would America see nukes heading towards this relatively tiny little island filled with a tiny amount of people compared to the rest of the world and think "Okay, let's sacrifice the whole planet for Britain"? Choices would be weighed and surely "Negotiate peace" would come before "f*** it, big red button" That would depend on who launched the nukes and who their allies are but that's one massive step I can see going towards a worldwide truce of some sort. We already have the Geneva Conventions so it's a possibility. At the very least maybe the amount of nukes would be drastically reduced so that each country can only have 5 or so before everyone else turns on them. |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| Copy_Ninja | May 21 2017, 12:46 PM Post #6 |
|
Novacane for the pain
|
There actually is a Nuclear Disarmament Treaty already and a heap of other treaties about doing it as well. Problem is, like so much of international law, there's no real way to enforce that so you have to rely on the countries keeping their word about doing it. I draw the opposite conclusion to the result of an actual strike. It's not going to make countries want to give up their weapons, it'll make more of them want to have them. Especially if an ally got hit and there wasn't a retaliatory strike. Take the UK example you gave. If the US did not retaliate in that scenario, when possibly their closest ally has been hit, they won't do it for anyone. All of a sudden you have plenty of nuclear capable countries that have thus far refrained from creating those weapons realising that they have no real protection. This would be most of the EU, the likes of South Korea and Japan, possibly Australia etc. There's a good chance they'll want to start development in that scenario. As for whether anyone would launch in retaliation, we honestly don't know. There's arguments for and against doing that. It would depend on the governments of the day. Which is the point of it really. You don't know if there would be a strike back but it's a possibility and a chance you can't really take. |
|
We'll never be those kids again
| |
|
|
|
| Sam | May 21 2017, 01:56 PM Post #7 |
It takes a mere second for treasure to turn to trash.
|
World War III will be fought with nuclear weapons. World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Heard that when I was younger and honestly, I've always believed it. Any use of nuclear weapons is sure to induce mutually assured destruction and basically "end the world" for a huge part of humanity. I doubt all of us would die out or really come close, but, damn, it would thin the herd pretty hardcore. Eventually, some Kim Jong-un type might get his hands on a world-ender and perhaps actually use it. Who knows. Time will tell. |
|
WoW Legion Ending - Thank you Darker for making this into one, big incredible gif! <3 | |
|
|
|
| Tinny | May 21 2017, 02:17 PM Post #8 |
 
|
Using North Korea as an example, I'm not absolutely sure that there will be nuclear retaliation, mostly because of China, but, regardless, North Korea would lose every last ally it had in this scenario. Something completely insane like this would be the last straw for China, dealing with the humanitarian crisis is gonna be awful, but frankly it's better than having the USA and Republic of Korea on your doorstep, and there will be military retaliation regardless of if there's nuclear retaliation. I do think nuclear weapons are more or less unnecessary against smaller nations that can't put up as much of a conventional defense, against China or Russia we still have their not inconsiderable military might to deal with, and vice versa, nuclear weapons are the best weapons to do damage against these countries simply from the comparative lack of forces needed for it. A small country like North Korea however, could only hope to pull off a guerrilla war, which is obviously gonna be a lot tougher if China steps in to restore order (and preserve both their relatively fine relations with the USA as well as a bloc against South Korea and by extension the United States). Overall, in the best case scenario, I can see this dissuading smaller countries from developing nuclear capabilities simply because if they piss of a large enough nation, they'll still end up losing an actual war in the end, because even though they're not using nuclear weapons back, they don't need to. With all that said, I'd rather not put this prediction to the test lol. But overall unless it was a large enough nation, i don't think nukes would be normalized, and in fact the whole idea of prestige from it may actually end up being destroyed if North Korea used it (and then got invaded from both borders most likely). A nuclear weapon may be useful and devastating, but against countries like China, Russia, and America (which no matter where North Korea uses, it will end up endangering someone's and likely everyone's sphere of influence), it's ultimately just a ticket to invasion and being deposed. Any country allied with Russia or China would likely face a similar fate as they're likely invaded by their "ally" and then a more stable, less likely to rock the boat, and more friendly regime is put in place. I imagine in a situation where our allies end up trying that, we may do the same thing as well, I mean we've invaded previous allies over less, Desert Storm and all that. Edited by Tinny, May 21 2017, 02:30 PM.
|
 Above signature created by Graffiti 
| |
|
|
| Political Piper | Jun 13 2017, 06:22 PM Post #9 |
|
Oh dear... How would Trump initiate a nuclear attack? And which two of his cabinet members would approve the attack? The President cannot just say he wants to nuke so and so. The action needs to be approved from 2 other cabinet members who agree with the attack. Not sure if you are aware, but Trump essentially gave his military advisers free will in terms of defense and he has stated he trusts there judgement. So the question becomes, which one of Trump's military advisers do you think will initiate a nuclear attack? Mattis? Kelly? Then which military adviser will agree with the attack? It's easier saying a madman like Trump will probably nuke a country. It becomes a lot harder when you realize it takes more to nuke a country than a crazy, lunatic President.
I'm confused about this statement? Are you saying Trump already nuked a country?
Your contention is that Trump is clinically insane and would do such a thing, but you forget that his military advisers aren't. So the question becomes, which military advisers would allow Trump to launch a proactive nuclear attack and allow the countries you mentioned to wreak havoc on the US? I doubt our military leaders are suicidal. Contrary to popular belief, the military (even the military under a clueless, insane lunatic like Trump) won't willingly bring total destruction to the US by doing something completely reckless such as a proactive nuclear strike, but it is a great talking point to describe Trump's reckless insanity. |
|
My Youtube Channel With More Political and Breaking News Videos FOOD FOR THOUGHT: | |
|
|
|
| Common2 | Jun 14 2017, 04:10 PM Post #10 |
|
I don't see anything about cabinet members' approval in this Bloomberg article that describes the nuclear launch sequence. It seems that Trump can consult others if he wishes to, but ultimately the decision is his. So what are you talking about? https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/ |
|
|
|
| Political Piper | Jun 15 2017, 03:14 AM Post #11 |
|
If you reread that Bloomberg article and look at the bottom of the page you will see where it says there is a 2-man rule. I thought 2 man rule not including the President so a total of 3 people, but I admit it was 2 people. But yeah, reread the article all the way through. They didn't do a very good job elaborating on it, maybe they didn't feel they needed to? Whatever the reason, they could have elaborated more. But here is what they said: "It takes just two “votes” to launch the missiles. So even if three two-officer ICBM crews refuse to carry out the order, it won’t stop the launch." I'll post some other sources as well. Here's from the wikipedia page - all the sources are on the bottom of the page. Here is the protocol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Codes Spoiler: click to toggle Here's some more sourced material: According to the International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, The President cannot unilaterally use the nuclear codes to launch a nuclear attack. Rather, the United States enforces a two person rule with respect to nuclear activation at every level. At the highest level, this rule requires that the President jointly issue launch orders with the Secretary of Defense. The rule continues down the line, with commanding officers and executive officers working in tandem, and missile operators agreeing on launch order validity. Here's an article where Buzzfeed tries to comfort those afraid that Trump will nuke the world (which tend to be a lot of people surprisingly.) People actually believe he's going to nuke everyone, it's actually quite crazy. https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/dont-worry-president-trump-wont-actually-have-his-finger-on?utm_term=.yo0ZPkODq#.ikBrdjzAW You can also Google 2-man rule nuclear and 3-man rule nuclear. The 3-man rule is a suggestion by many people out there to make it harder for nukes to be used. But yeah, hope this helps! Edited by Political Piper, Jun 15 2017, 05:17 AM.
|
|
My Youtube Channel With More Political and Breaking News Videos FOOD FOR THOUGHT: | |
|
|
|
| Common2 | Jun 20 2017, 02:55 AM Post #12 |
|
I saw that part of the article and am aware of the 2-man rule, but the 2-man rule does not refer to two cabinet members consenting to a nuclear launch order. It refers to the two-officer requirement for the physical launch. The president can still unilaterally make the order without approval of anyone else in the cabinet. That is what I was responding to -- your post seemed to suggest it two cabinet members are required to even give the order:
He wouldn't need the consent of Mattis or Kelly or anyone else in his cabinet. The only people who can stop him are those ICBM officers the article mentions, and to do so, at least 4 out of 5 units they would have to disobey the order of POTUS.
This article mostly discusses the execution of a nuclear launch, rather than making the decision to initiate a nuclear launch. It looks like the 2-man rule is about execution of the of the launch, after the order has been given. That's my understanding. Edited by Common2, Jun 20 2017, 03:01 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Political Piper | Jun 26 2017, 08:40 PM Post #13 |
|
Basically, the NCA (National Command Authority) has to be involved with the two-man rule. The Sec Defense must approve the launch. If Mattis refuses then Trump can fire him and get someone else. But since we know Trump listens to his military advisers more than anyone else, it is fairly certain a nuclear attack will only be done with approval from his military advisers. I could be wrong, but the name Mad-Dog Mattis doesn't mean he will approve nuclear strikes all over the world. I feel absolutely confident that Trump can't unilaterally launch nuclear weapons, and the steps to take for him to bypass that are so unlikely it's not even worth worrying about. |
|
My Youtube Channel With More Political and Breaking News Videos FOOD FOR THOUGHT: | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:56 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy