I don't think so. The world got through the Cold War which was nothing but the constant threat of nukes, the finger forever hovering above the button. M.A.D., nuclear deterrence and all that jazz.. And we got through it.
There are no benefits of nuclear war, but plenty of problems with it. And really, it's questionable whether there will be another "major" war, at least for the time being. We have one dominant superpower, and atomic weapons have only been used once in war ever, and that was really just to demonstrate their power. I don't think nuclear war is high on the likelihood scale.
Far more likely for more flash point, smaller countries to get a bit trigger happy and start flinging bombs at one another, like over Kashmir or Israel, affecting a smaller area, then for a global nuclear war to begin.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
We're in a "Major" war right now. the war against terrorism; the war in Iraq. The "Major" war before that it was Operation Dessert Storm in the 90's. The next "Major" war before that was in Vietnam in the 60's. The next "Major" war before Vietnam was probably the Korean war. The the mother of all "Major" wars; World Wars 1 and 2. And these "Major" wars were declared just in the 20th century. These 6 "Major" wars have taken place in within the time span of 90 years.
What makes you think that there will not be another "Major" war again. War is a consistent habit of man and notice that the wars heavily involve the US. Iran may be the next "Major" war.
__________________ "The darkside, Sidious, is an illness no true Sith wishes to be cured of, my young apprentice .."
It's questionable whether there'll be another "Major" war at least for the time being? I'm going to assume that you haven't been into the U.S. - Iran tension for your own reasons, be what they may be.
If you think that the US is the one dominant superpower of the planet then I'll have to ardently disagree with you on your ill notion.
Nuclear War is on a probable scale is what I think you meant to write. Nuclear tension in Israel and Iran is very volatile now as is the Indian and Pakistani conflict over in Kashmir.
__________________ "The darkside, Sidious, is an illness no true Sith wishes to be cured of, my young apprentice .."
When I think of a major war where there is a danger of nuclear conflict, I think of a war between equals, not the US bludgeoning some outdated army from the air, or nations who rely on wave tactics (like Vietnam) - serious yes, they affect the world, but not the kind of situations where Nukes would come into play - it took a war like WWII for an atomic bomb to actually be used, even unnecessarily...
And after all, if Iran is the next "major" WAR and the US for some strange reason used nukes, well, it still wouldn't really be a nuclear conflict as Iran doesn't posses offensive nuclear capabilities. It would be the US dropping nuclear weapons on them, and Iran not being able to retaliate on a similar level. So Iran better get a wriggle on with it's nuclear program.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Last edited by Imperial_Samura on Jan 14th, 2006 at 01:09 AM
Which is what I was saying. It is far more likely for there to be a limited nuclear conflict at those flash points. Now any nuclear slugging match would be serious, but compared to say the danger of nuclear conflict during the cold war, or if the US and China went at it, they would be relatively minor, and contained to a relatively small area.
And the US isn't the only global power, but it is the dominant one. After the collapse of the USSR the US was left alone at the top. Yes, the gap has narrowed significantly between it and say China, or a unified Europe, but there is still a gap, if only in nuclear arsenals and their quality.
True, two bombs were dropped, but it was part of a single offensive, and it has only happened once, hence atomic weapons have only be used in a war once.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
1) How many times have their been nuclear attacks in war?
Answer: Two/One offensive.
2) Why has there not been another?
Answer: Because nobody wants that to happen to them. Which would inevitably be the result of using one first.
So will the next war be nuclear? I'd say it's less likely than ever. Will there be other nuclear attacks? It's a possibility I guess, accounting for nutcases. I doubt there will be a nuclear WAR though.
well depleted uranium shells have been in US since gulf war I and those have been show to be very damaging to the environment and human life.
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
Hence the reason I used quotation marks. Every war is major. The way you said it in your first post didn't seem to recognize that fact until clearly shown right now. There is nothing minimal about war, it's serious shit.
you classifie that idea as taking terrorism as a war?
I still don't see how someone can call it a war. Just because you strike back at terrorists after they committed 911 does not make it a war on terrorism. That was a "war" (altho hardly worth calling it) between the US (and allies) and the Taliban.
if you want to call passing laws against and coming down hard on terrorism a war than by all means do. But I think it is a wrong use of the word.
A war is something that could be won (imo). And this "war" on terror can not be won.
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
KMC Community Forums
Jan 14th, 2006 12:16 AM
