How likely is Nuclear War?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:38:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  How likely is Nuclear War?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: How likely is Nuclear War?  (Read 1244 times)
Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.
diskymike44
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,831


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 11, 2017, 09:20:10 PM »

I would say that 5%.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2017, 09:22:10 PM »

99%. We’ve somehow given the power to start one to a man who wants to.
Logged
Cactus Jack
azcactus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2017, 09:23:47 PM »

99%. We’ve somehow given the power to start one to a man who wants to.

jesus christ

Anyway, I'd put it in the vicinity of 10%, which in itself is way too high.
Logged
Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.
diskymike44
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,831


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2017, 09:26:26 PM »

99%. We’ve somehow given the power to start one to a man who wants to.

jesus christ

Anyway, I'd put it in the vicinity of 10%, which in itself is way too high.

Beet being beet lol
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2017, 09:27:59 PM »

99%. We’ve somehow given the power to start one to a man who wants to.

jesus christ

Anyway, I'd put it in the vicinity of 10%, which in itself is way too high.

Beet being beet lol

It’s going to happen.
Logged
Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.
diskymike44
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,831


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2017, 09:29:55 PM »

99%. We’ve somehow given the power to start one to a man who wants to.

jesus christ

Anyway, I'd put it in the vicinity of 10%, which in itself is way too high.

Beet being beet lol

It’s going to happen.

Welp, guess I better start playing Fallout 4 then to get ready.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2017, 09:34:40 PM »


Yeah. Which is still too high.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2017, 09:53:09 PM »

For those saying only 5%, why so low? We know that Trump has threatened to attack North Korea if they don't give in to absurd demands (like giving up their nuclear weapons). He's always known that such a demand wouldn't work. If there's an attack it immediately becomes an existential threat to North Korea, and they have no reason not to hit back with nukes.  

My view is that they have far more nuclear missiles, hidden away in a vast network of underground tunnels that they've been building for years, than our intelligence could possibly estimate. No matter how many satellites we have, we can't see underground. Their missile capability is also higher than our estimates, since they are being fed by third parties. Even if Pyongyang was totally flattened, their nuclear command structure and government would remain intact, and their population is highly motivated. The US position in the western Pacific is weaker than it looks. Think about it... what surface strongpoints do we actually have? A base in Seoul, and a few bases in Japan, and Guam, all of which positions are well known. Then we have three or four aircraft carrier battle groups, which are sitting ducks for a nuclear strike. All of these strongpoints could be taken out very easily, which leaves us with submarimes but nothing on the surface. At that point, Trump will want to make good on his threat to "totally destroy" North Korea, and the North Koreans will want to do as much damage to the U.S. mainland as possible in retaliation. South Dakota is relatively safe, but Chicago, New York City, Seattle, and San Francisco are not. Not that Trump would mind, as all these cities voted for Clinton, and it would give him an excuse to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law. The other option is that China gets drawn in and the U.S. enters a protracted war with China which ends in a nuclear exchange.

I'm not just posting, either. I am actually moving out of D.C. in part because I don't want to be here when the nuke hits.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2017, 09:56:03 PM »
« Edited: October 11, 2017, 09:57:54 PM by Lincoln Republican »

At the moment, o%.

Because there is no way North Korea wants to be obliterated.
Logged
BudgieForce
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2017, 09:56:15 PM »

For those saying only 5%, why so low? We know that Trump has threatened to attack North Korea if they don't give in to absurd demands (like giving up their nuclear weapons). He's always known that such a demand wouldn't work. If there's an attack it immediately becomes an existential threat to North Korea, and they have no reason not to hit back with nukes.  

My view is that they have far more nuclear missiles, hidden away in a vast network of underground tunnels that they've been building for years, than our intelligence could possibly estimate. No matter how many satellites we have, we can't see underground. Their missile capability is also higher than our estimates, since they are being fed by third parties. Even if Pyongyang was totally flattened, their nuclear command structure and government would remain intact, and their population is highly motivated. The US position in the western Pacific is weaker than it looks. Think about it... what surface strongpoints do we actually have? A base in Seoul, and a few bases in Japan, and Guam, all of which positions are well known. Then we have three or four aircraft carrier battle groups, which are sitting ducks for a nuclear strike. All of these strongpoints could be taken out very easily, which leaves us with submarimes but nothing on the surface. At that point, Trump will want to make good on his threat to "totally destroy" North Korea, and the North Koreans will want to do as much damage to the U.S. mainland as possible in retaliation. South Dakota is relatively safe, but Chicago, New York City, Seattle, and San Francisco are not. Not that Trump would mind, as all these cities voted for Clinton, and it would give him an excuse to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law. The other option is that China gets drawn in and the U.S. enters a protracted war with China which ends in a nuclear exchange.

I'm not just posting, either. I am actually moving out of D.C. in part because I don't want to be here when the nuke hits.


That seems extreme.
Logged
Deblano
EdgarAllenYOLO
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,680
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2017, 10:08:26 PM »
« Edited: October 11, 2017, 10:22:45 PM by Deblano »

For those saying only 5%, why so low? We know that Trump has threatened to attack North Korea if they don't give in to absurd demands (like giving up their nuclear weapons). He's always known that such a demand wouldn't work. If there's an attack it immediately becomes an existential threat to North Korea, and they have no reason not to hit back with nukes.  

My view is that they have far more nuclear missiles, hidden away in a vast network of underground tunnels that they've been building for years, than our intelligence could possibly estimate. No matter how many satellites we have, we can't see underground. Their missile capability is also higher than our estimates, since they are being fed by third parties. Even if Pyongyang was totally flattened, their nuclear command structure and government would remain intact, and their population is highly motivated. The US position in the western Pacific is weaker than it looks. Think about it... what surface strongpoints do we actually have? A base in Seoul, and a few bases in Japan, and Guam, all of which positions are well known. Then we have three or four aircraft carrier battle groups, which are sitting ducks for a nuclear strike. All of these strongpoints could be taken out very easily, which leaves us with submarimes but nothing on the surface. At that point, Trump will want to make good on his threat to "totally destroy" North Korea, and the North Koreans will want to do as much damage to the U.S. mainland as possible in retaliation. South Dakota is relatively safe, but Chicago, New York City, Seattle, and San Francisco are not. Not that Trump would mind, as all these cities voted for Clinton, and it would give him an excuse to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law. The other option is that China gets drawn in and the U.S. enters a protracted war with China which ends in a nuclear exchange.

I'm not just posting, either. I am actually moving out of D.C. in part because I don't want to be here when the nuke hits.


That seems extreme.

Also if China entered a Second Korean as a result of us retaliating over a North Korean WMD attack, they'd probably do it by conducting airstrikes (like in Syria) or "mediating" a peace deal. A lot of analysts do not expect China to send troops across the Yalu River yet again.

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-korean-war-20170925-story.html

EDIT: Also, they do not currently have a nuclear capable ICBM that can reach New York City, D.C., or any other city on the East Coast. The most pessimistic estimates are either Chicago or Colorado.
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,289
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2017, 12:41:08 AM »

I will say 10% which is a STUPID HIGH risk for a civilization-ending event that was inconceivable before Trump took office. Basically, we're down to hoping that Kim Yong-un has a sense of self-preservation or that the Trump cabinet will invoke the 25th.
Logged
Cactus Jack
azcactus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2017, 01:05:50 AM »

I'm not just posting, either. I am actually moving out of D.C. in part because I don't want to be here when the nuke hits.

You know, I would really expect a self-proclaimed super-genius to know that the North Koreans physically cannot hit any American city east of the Midwest. In fact, the current belief is that they'd be lucky if they could hit the West Coast.
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,366


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2017, 01:35:24 AM »

It depends on what you mean by nuclear war. And what timeframe.

If you mean at least one nuclear weapon detonated in anger within, say, the next three years and three months then I'd say higher than it's been in my lifetime. Trump, plus Kim, plus India-Pakistan tensions, general global situation and an incompetent President... fifteen percent. (Which seems really scary high!)

If you mean Global Thermonuclear War then under one percent. The only one who really might start that would be Trump. And I'm enough of an optimist to think the people around him would stop him first, one way or another.
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,366


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2017, 01:41:40 AM »

I'm not just posting, either. I am actually moving out of D.C. in part because I don't want to be here when the nuke hits.

You know, I would really expect a self-proclaimed super-genius to know that the North Koreans physically cannot hit any American city east of the Midwest. In fact, the current belief is that they'd be lucky if they could hit the West Coast.

Aren't the North Korean's supposed to have some sort of worldwide smuggling ring?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2017, 07:19:50 AM »

<2% (assuming we're just talking about the next couple of years)
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2017, 07:25:37 AM »

Under 2% and that's being overly pessimistic. I hope nobody at this point still takes Beet seriously, especially when he's shilling for North Korea.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2017, 07:35:37 AM »

I'm not just posting, either. I am actually moving out of D.C. in part because I don't want to be here when the nuke hits.

You know, I would really expect a self-proclaimed super-genius to know that the North Koreans physically cannot hit any American city east of the Midwest. In fact, the current belief is that they'd be lucky if they could hit the West Coast.
and anybody nuking DC ain't just doing it once.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2017, 07:38:49 AM »

What do you mean by that? Let's not get too hung up on the old concept of MAD - just because one nuclear missile is used does not automatically mean every nation-state will shout FIRE ZE MISSILES and end human civilisation in a catastrophic nuclear exchange.

I actually think there is a relatively - and worryingly - high chance that the current brinkmanship will lead to a nuclear missile being used in an aggressive manner, even if is is the DPRK launching a missile into US territorial waters to make a power move. There is a smaller, but not negligible chance of nuclear missiles being used on the peninsula itself; and a very small (tiny even) chance that PRC and USA will be sufficiently at odds that a nuclear war develops between them.
Logged
SoLongAtlas
VirginiaModerate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,219
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2017, 07:45:52 AM »

3%. It goes higher if Kim uses a nuke in a conventional strike by the US/SK (good chance). If this was to occur there is a strong chance of a US retaliation on NK via ICBMs/SLBMs (maybe bombers but I doubt it in this scenario).

In this case, even China might nuke NK due to the disaster it has let happen, esp if the NK nuke goes off further to the north than China would like.
Logged
adrac
adracman42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 722


Political Matrix
E: -9.99, S: -9.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2017, 07:52:15 AM »

It depends on what you mean by nuclear war. And what timeframe.

If you mean at least one nuclear weapon detonated in anger within, say, the next three years and three months then I'd say higher than it's been in my lifetime. Trump, plus Kim, plus India-Pakistan tensions, general global situation and an incompetent President... fifteen percent. (Which seems really scary high!)

If you mean Global Thermonuclear War then under one percent. The only one who really might start that would be Trump. And I'm enough of an optimist to think the people around him would stop him first, one way or another.

I agree with these numbers. About 15% for a limited nuclear exchange, very low for civilization-ending catastrophe.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,849
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2017, 08:19:38 AM »

Beet, take your meds dude.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2017, 09:10:52 AM »

I love how all the people personally attacking me have no counterargument. Can you answer YES to any of these questions?

Will North Korea voluntarily give up is nuclear capability?
Will the United States accept a North Korea with nuclear capability?
If the United States launches a massive attack on North Korea, will they hold back from nuclear retaliation?

Unless you can answer YES to one of these questions, nuclear war will happen. All the people saying the chance is less than 15-20% are saying that the 'Yes' answers above add up to 80-85%. You would have to be as high as a kite to take that view, since there is currently zero evidence that any of the questions add up to Yes.

The closest is question 2, since at least some US experts believe this is necessary. That's why it's the position I advocate.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2017, 09:24:41 AM »

I love how all the people personally attacking me have no counterargument. Can you answer YES to any of these questions?

Will North Korea voluntarily give up is nuclear capability?
Will the United States accept a North Korea with nuclear capability?
If the United States launches a massive attack on North Korea, will they hold back from nuclear retaliation?

Unless you can answer YES to one of these questions, nuclear war will happen. All the people saying the chance is less than 15-20% are saying that the 'Yes' answers above add up to 80-85%. You would have to be as high as a kite to take that view, since there is currently zero evidence that any of the questions add up to Yes.

The closest is question 2, since at least some US experts believe this is necessary. That's why it's the position I advocate.

You're missing what is probably the most important question between two and three:

Will the United States respond to a North Korea with nuclear capacity by launching a massive attack?

To which the answer is and has been an easy no for over a decade, putting no far above 95%. I'm sure there are other missing questions to, but they don't immediately spring to mind.
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,964
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2017, 12:01:15 PM »

I think the answer to the 2nd question is yes. This doesn't mean the chance for a nuclear is higher than it's been in a long time. But 99% feels way too high to me.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 12 queries.