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.
Originally posted by Nevermind
Hopefully there will be no next "major" war.
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.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
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.
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.
Actually 2 (nuclear) Atomic bombs were dropped in WWII. In Japan on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
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.
The key here is asking two questions:
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.
-AC
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You seem to have an obsessive fascination with the cessation of all known life.I'm not sure if it's a mania, or an attempt to be weighty.
There is a consistency that I do see, isn't there.
Hm, didn't catch that but in reply it's neither of the two. I'm just morbidly curious person that's all.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
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.
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.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
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.
Just wondering but you seriously believe that war against terrorism stuff?
Re: Will the Next Major War be Nuclear?
Originally posted by FistOfThe NorthThe next war will be nuclear and the one after that will be fought with rocks and sticks.
I have a feeling it will be. And it won't e pretty cause if it ends up being nuclear, more than 1 will be use.The next war may be Nuclear
Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Believing it is irrelevant, the fact is its there.
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.