A nuclear WWIII will never happen. Dishonor will prevent it.

[SoLongAtlas]

OP, watch these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZXUC-nnDIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_hM-vimf10

[Ye We Can]

Rocket man pls nuke this thread thx

[ProudModerate2]

I cant believe this is actually a serious thread (in the OP).

[Greatest I am]

Utterly naive at best. Asian honor does not preclude the use of nuclear force, especially when attacked. Second, the JCOS and STRATCOM are bound to obey POTUS in the event of a nuclear strike order. The chances of that "rogue officer" are slim even under Trump. Third, and I don't know how old you are OP so I'll give you a pass, but nukes are used against cities AND industrial/military bases esp as the primary target within a city. It's not just about taking out cities and "being a Hitler." There is an objective for each target.

In terms of defence against a first strike, you are correct.

In terms of initiating a first strike. you, I dearly hope, are quite wrong.

I am old enough to have an inkling of the honor in the hearts of our militaries and how they view war. They war for love of family and country and would never do a first nuclear strike as they know that M A D would kill all those they love and fight for.

Would you do a pre-emptive strike knowing you are killing all those you love?

If you would, you have no honor in you and that is not the case with trained military thinkers.

They wish to wear their medals with pride. Not with shame.

Regards
DL
 

Please read this: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/

In terms of Navy and AF personnel that deal with nukes, yes, they know that their loved ones may die but must put their orders before personal feelings. If they can't, they should resign or if they are enlisted, be discharged by his or her CO.

If this situation ever happens, yes restraint is necessary but then again, if this happens, it most likely would be a hit them before they can hit us even further even while we see the ICBMs on the way, hence MAD and why it was effective during the CW.

In terms of first strike, no military has enough dishonorable soldiers to put in the key-holders seat and any leader who tried to rotate honorable men out of those seats would soon find himself dead or ousted from power.

Would you turn the first initial strike key and destroy all those you love?

If not, what makes you think any other sane and honorable man would?

Regards
DL

Do you know anything about how military billeting works? In terms of enlisted NCOs and SNCOs it is by assignment from PERSCOM or the equivalent and as you go up by selection although you still may not get it. For officers, it is a rotation based on selection and the same thing applies but you have a better selection of getting what you want in terms of assignment. That said, with nuclear crews (USAF and USN) it doesn't depend on honor or whatever but orders. And if they don't follow orders in case of a nuclear order coming down, they are immediately replaced. The training and discipline in this regard is immense, detailed, and accurate and is based on short time standby. They constantly train for this all the time.

And for your personal question, would I turn the key if I was in one of those billets and the order came down, the answer is yes but with an extremely heavy heart knowing the consequences.

Then you are not an honorable man.

Regards
DL

It's not a matter of honor but orders. In terms of your latest reply, please see my signature.

Noah showed he was a traitor to humanity when following God's orders to build an ark.
The right thing for him to do would have been to tell God to cure instead of kill. Or F right off.

You would be showing yourself to be just as big of a traitor to humanity and the world if you initiated a first nuclear strike.

Orders that would only be given by a madman should be ignored and the one giving the orders told to go back to the asylum.

Regards
DL

For the record, a first strike on NK wouldn't be done. It would be a counterstrike if they launched on SK, Japan, or the US. In that case, it would completely be validated.

I don't know why you brought up Noah and the ark in a logical argument about military matters but ok.

I invoked Noah's genocide of the world as it is analogous to what a nuclear war would be.

Genocide is a military matter.

I agree with retaliation if a missile lands. If it does not, then standard warfare would be the way to go.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I will say that it is a lot harder to start a WWIII than people think.

I agree.

The notion of military honor would have to be destroyed and I cannot see that happening.

To kill it, one would have to kill the love of family, women and children that lives in the hearts of all of us.

That is why M A D has killed the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The ones who turn the keys know that if they turn them, they condemn all they love to death or kill the respect they have from their loved ones.

Only revenge against those who kill their loved ones with a first strike would harden the hearts of any honorable military man who has the key enough to make him use it.

Regards
DL

That and also there have been many close calls in the past 70 years, but that's all they have been. Close calls.

I remember when Turkey (aka a NATO member) shot down a Russian fighter jet over Syria and both nations exchanged harsh words and called it a "stab in the back". Yet the world continued to turn.

If a WWIII ever happens, then it will happen, but (unpopular opinion) I do not fear a Third world war starting anytime soon. It CAN happen, but I do not expect it to happen.

Ditto.

Regards
DL

[ProudModerate2]

Hmmmmm .... I wonder .....
With an Atlas, narcissist username of "Greatest I am," could the OP actually be trump ?

[The Mikado]

The OP's claim is one of the dumbest and most cultural-essentialist arguments I've ever read. One only needs to look at the career and statements of Mao Zedong to see that a willingness to accept nuclear war is not something that an "Asian heritage" will automatically stop. He famously said that there are so many Chinese that a few will survive even the worst nuclear war, and also had this jaw-dropping quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ProudModerate2]

It's apparently easy to convince others, that it's not "dishonor" but honorable to conduct yourself in destructive activities during war.
In WWII the Japanese conducted suicide kamikaze missions using airplanes and miniature submarines.
Today, organizations that distort/warp the Islamic religion (ISIS) convince many of their followers to blow themselves up, or ram trucks and planes into areas to kill many.

So the definition of "dishonor" and honor is not easy to ascertain. Each individual will see it differently. Both Kim Jong-Un and trump have levels of mental illness, so who is to say how they see "dishonor" in their future (possible nuclear) war plans.

[Greatest I am]

OP, watch these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZXUC-nnDIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_hM-vimf10

These do not change my theory.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

It's apparently easy to convince others, that it's not "dishonor" but honorable to conduct yourself in destructive activities during war.
In WWII the Japanese conducted suicide kamikaze missions using airplanes and miniature submarines.
Today, organizations that distort/warp the Islamic religion (ISIS) convince many of their followers to blow themselves up, or ram trucks and planes into areas to kill many.

So the definition of "dishonor" and honor is not easy to ascertain. Each individual will see it differently. Both Kim Jong-Un and trump have levels of mental illness, so who is to say how they see "dishonor" in their future (possible nuclear) war plans.

Leadership is irrelevant to a man of honor deciding not to do a first strike wjile knowing if he does, it will get all those he  loves killed.

Regards
DL

[ProudModerate2]

It's apparently easy to convince others, that it's not "dishonor" but honorable to conduct yourself in destructive activities during war.
In WWII the Japanese conducted suicide kamikaze missions using airplanes and miniature submarines.
Today, organizations that distort/warp the Islamic religion (ISIS) convince many of their followers to blow themselves up, or ram trucks and planes into areas to kill many.

So the definition of "dishonor" and honor is not easy to ascertain. Each individual will see it differently. Both Kim Jong-Un and trump have levels of mental illness, so who is to say how they see "dishonor" in their future (possible nuclear) war plans.

Leadership is irrelevant to a man of honor deciding not to do a first strike wjile knowing if he does, it will get all those he  loves killed.

Regards
DL

Exit-stage-left, for me.

[GeorgiaModerate]

It's apparently easy to convince others, that it's not "dishonor" but honorable to conduct yourself in destructive activities during war.
In WWII the Japanese conducted suicide kamikaze missions using airplanes and miniature submarines.
Today, organizations that distort/warp the Islamic religion (ISIS) convince many of their followers to blow themselves up, or ram trucks and planes into areas to kill many.

So the definition of "dishonor" and honor is not easy to ascertain. Each individual will see it differently. Both Kim Jong-Un and trump have levels of mental illness, so who is to say how they see "dishonor" in their future (possible nuclear) war plans.

Leadership is irrelevant to a man of honor deciding not to do a first strike wjile knowing if he does, it will get all those he  loves killed.

Regards
DL

Exit-stage-left, for me.

Ditto.  There's little point in trying to have a discussion when it just generates the same responses over and over.

[SoLongAtlas]

OP, watch these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZXUC-nnDIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_hM-vimf10

These do not change my theory.

Regards
DL

Well your theory is wrong and that's just it: military procedures regarding nuclear launch don't revolve around theories. I posted what actually occurs. Not going to respond again.

[dead0man]

I will say that it is a lot harder to start a WWIII than people think.

indeed, and especially now versus, say, 1951 to 1986.

[Koharu]

We have had 70 years of peace to learn what is honorable warfare ands what is not.

No, we've had seventy years of squabbles that were often never brought to resolution, and dishonorable "warfare" brought forward as the way to go if you want victory.

My grandfather was lucky and got out of Germany between the wars. My father can remember pieces of WWII, and he was in the service during the early Vietnam era. He's extremely worried about the situation we're now in.

Honor actually rarely comes into play when you get down to the nitty-gritty of war. We like to think of war as a noble undertaking, especially when it's something as big as a world-war. But usually the ultimate goals are greed and revenge. There's nothing noble about that. Individuals are certainly honorable, but as a whole war is not an honorable business and rarely ever has been. People who look back and see honor are usually romanticizing it.

[The Mikado]

The most successful generals of the last 70 years were people who fought maximizing their advantages against overwhelming forces, not people who played by a rulebook dominated by "honor." Vo Nyugen Giap was arguably the most talented general of the post-WWII period (who else can boast winning three separate wars against great powers over a thirty year timeframe?) and did not do so by prioritizing the pursuit of glory. The Vietnamese fought dirty when they had to and used their opponents' might against them.

[Greatest I am]

I believe that military men have honor.

I hope those who think the opposite are wrong.

We will all find out the truth if a nuclear key is turned and M A D comes into play.

Noah did not have the balls or honor to tell God where to go and we shall see if the honor of the military tell our insane leaders the same thing.

Regards
DL

[Inmate Trump]

If Hillary were president, would anyone be discussing nuclear war?

And I thought she was supposed to be the war hawk, like Trump and his cult claimed her to be.

[Greatest I am]

If Hillary were president, would anyone be discussing nuclear war?

And I thought she was supposed to be the war hawk, like Trump and his cult claimed her to be.

She is not and we cannot know what the situation would be if she was.

Regards
DL