Alarming nuke question

Forums › Off topic › Alarming nuke question

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

1145 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2950013 3-Aug-2022 09:28

@tdgeek yes its a geo-political negotiation tool. Used in a way to control the un-educated masses. If people understood the history books better perhaps the sway of stories like this would have a lesser impact.

The US is in decline as the ruling super-power of the current age. China is on the rise.

All the signs lead to it, inflation to keep the empire in check. An ageing military. Internal civil conflict between the "haves" and the "have nots".

The best thing anyone can do is to educate. Educate themselves, educate their kids. Education always brings delayed prosperity. But it should be one of the key drivers to lift NZ up the OECD rankings.

Another way to explain it is there has alway been a loaded gun pointing at your head your entire life. Why would you all of a sudden become anxious about this now. Get on with it, you can't do anything about the situation so stressing about it will just make you anxious.

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

7611 posts

Uber Geek

#2950117 3-Aug-2022 11:08

darylblake:

there has alway been a loaded gun pointing at your head your entire life. Why would you all of a sudden become anxious about this now. Get on with it, you can't do anything about the situation so stressing about it will just make you anxious.

This. Worry is mostly a wasted emotion.

Mike

andrew75

112 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#2950127 3-Aug-2022 11:46

I think most likely scenario is rogue state (likely Iran) or group likely religiously motivated (so no fear of consequences) gets hold of a device and decides to use it on Israel or the US, then what would the response escalate to. Or Kim being backed into a corner from which he can't escape and because of no fear of consequences decides to go rouge. What would the US response be, and what would the likes of China do if the US nuked someone in their back yard.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17232 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2950130 3-Aug-2022 11:49

Some thread drift going on here. Nothing wrong with that but just to be clear, the question I started this thread with was not about the Guterres statement (which I just used to introduce the issue), but about the effects of a nuclear exchange in the northern hemisphere on us down here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

andrew75

112 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#2950143 3-Aug-2022 12:08

Effects down here...

Covid Toilet paper scenario x10,000,000...

alexx

856 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2950163 3-Aug-2022 12:44

It makes no sense to start a Nuclear war in the same way it made made no sense to start the first world war, but somehow that happened.

I'm sure they did an exercise in the 1980s(?), where they counted up all the warheads and modelled the likely targets. From memory they had enough warheads left over for a few NZ targets, most likely Auckland/Devonport, Wellington and the US base in Christchurch, possibly the Mt John satellite tracking station (no longer operational?) and a few others.

Even if you don't think that NZ will be targeted at all, Australia is a close US ally and apparently ranked 17 out of 142 of the countries considered in the Global Firepower ranking, which means that no enemy of the US would want to leave it untouched.

In addition, Brazil once had a nuclear programme and is considered to have nuclear breakout capability and could produce a weapon in a short time frame. It's likely that someone would see them as a potential threat and send a few warheads in their direction too.

In an all out war, the Southern hemisphere is going to get a few nukes.

#include <standard.disclaimer>

robcreid

243 posts

Master Geek

#2950178 3-Aug-2022 13:24

MikeB4:

I feel like I have suddenly been transported back to the 1970s. What would have here? As I see it we would see 5 million plus Kiwis putting their heads between their legs and kissing their Butts goodbye.

I probably could have managed that in the '70s but I don't have the flexibility anymore.

johno1234

1331 posts

Uber Geek

#2950179 3-Aug-2022 13:26

alexx:

It makes no sense to start a Nuclear war in the same way it made made no sense to start the first world war, but somehow that happened.

I'm sure they did an exercise in the 1980s(?), where they counted up all the warheads and modelled the likely targets. From memory they had enough warheads left over for a few NZ targets, most likely Auckland/Devonport, Wellington and the US base in Christchurch, possibly the Mt John satellite tracking station (no longer operational?) and a few others.

Even if you don't think that NZ will be targeted at all, Australia is a close US ally and apparently ranked 17 out of 142 of the countries considered in the Global Firepower ranking, which means that no enemy of the US would want to leave it untouched.

In addition, Brazil once had a nuclear programme and is considered to have nuclear breakout capability and could produce a weapon in a short time frame. It's likely that someone would see them as a potential threat and send a few warheads in their direction too.

In an all out war, the Southern hemisphere is going to get a few nukes.

I don't think it is about 'sense'. It is about 'can I get away with it'. I think Kaizer Wilhelm II, Hitler and Putin all believed they could 'get away with' a conventional war. I don't think any of the major nuclear powers believe they can get away with a nuclear war, hence the M and A in MAD. The new nuclear powers such as Iran and DPRK may not care if they can get away with it though.

There doesn't seem to be any consensus among experts that Australia, let alone NZ would be a target in a modern nuclear war, for example: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/secrets-out-soviets-did-not-target-cities-20120805-23ny1.html

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2950188 3-Aug-2022 14:30

darylblake:

@tdgeek yes its a geo-political negotiation tool. Used in a way to control the un-educated masses. If people understood the history books better perhaps the sway of stories like this would have a lesser impact.

The US is in decline as the ruling super-power of the current age. China is on the rise.

All the signs lead to it, inflation to keep the empire in check. An ageing military. Internal civil conflict between the "haves" and the "have nots".

I agree about the geo-politics. But the USA isn't the only super-power in decline.

I'd add that during a decline a super-power (aka an empire) has to spend increasing amounts of resources, and increasingly control of its citizenry, to prop up the status quo (e.g. the Cold War in the Warsaw Pact). As the citizenry becomes increasingly aggrieved, eventually the control is spread too thin, and the regime is overthrown, one piece at a time. Parts of the empire carve off, either as independent states (not usually successful long-term) or absorbed into a neighbouring expanding empire. We saw this with the USSR in the 80s and 90s (everywhere from East Germany to Poland and Moldova), and we're seeing it again more recently with Georgia, Chechnya, and Ukraine. Georgia & Chechnya's revolts were a bit premature and got severely squashed, and it remains to be seen whether Ukraine will succeed. But the effort needed to subdue Ukraine may weaken Russia sufficiently for others to try their hand. And there are already suggestions that Chechnya in particular might give it another go.

If you are a super-power (e.g. Russia, USA) which is weakening relative to others (China, EU), your enemies will encourage dissent amongst your vassal states (e.g. Ukraine, Belorus, any of the "Stans") with the aim of taking them from you. So, should you roll over and hand it over (e.g. Britain & Czechoslovakia in 1938) to the enemy? The people will be repressed and marginalised, but more importantly their economy will be pillaged to enrich and empower their new overlords. Or should you defend your ally (e.g. Poland 1939), expending a lot of resources and lives and risk losing everything? So we're seeing a proxy war in Ukraine where the EU and USA are helping Ukraine, to weaken Russia further.

If you are weakening and your enemy is strengthening (and every loss of a vassal state makes it worse), and you don't have a plan to reverse that, then you should wipe your enemy out *now* if you can, no matter the risk and cost and damage, because next year the situation will be worse, and if you do nothing you will eventually be wiped out yourself. (I believe Putin is in this dilemma). However, any war (whether nuclear or not) with another super-power will weaken both of you substantially. After which a third super-power would take ownership of all your smoking ruins, and most of the rest of the world too. Maybe not militarily, but certainly economically. So the big winner out of the Ukraine war is China. They support Russia to weaken the USA, with an eye on Taiwan and Sout hEast Asia.

So, getting back to nukes... The geopolitical situation has changed from the Cold War when MAD related to pretty much only the the USSR and USA. None of the other nuclear powers had sufficient clout to destroy them. The emergence of China as a competitor with the USA and Russia means that any of those 3 must take out *both* of the others if they start a nuclear war.

alexx

856 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2950189 3-Aug-2022 14:35

johno1234:

alexx:

It makes no sense to start a Nuclear war in the same way it made made no sense to start the first world war, but somehow that happened.

I'm sure they did an exercise in the 1980s(?), where they counted up all the warheads and modelled the likely targets. From memory they had enough warheads left over for a few NZ targets, most likely Auckland/Devonport, Wellington and the US base in Christchurch, possibly the Mt John satellite tracking station (no longer operational?) and a few others.

Even if you don't think that NZ will be targeted at all, Australia is a close US ally and apparently ranked 17 out of 142 of the countries considered in the Global Firepower ranking, which means that no enemy of the US would want to leave it untouched.

In addition, Brazil once had a nuclear programme and is considered to have nuclear breakout capability and could produce a weapon in a short time frame. It's likely that someone would see them as a potential threat and send a few warheads in their direction too.

In an all out war, the Southern hemisphere is going to get a few nukes.

I don't think it is about 'sense'. It is about 'can I get away with it'. I think Kaizer Wilhelm II, Hitler and Putin all believed they could 'get away with' a conventional war. I don't think any of the major nuclear powers believe they can get away with a nuclear war, hence the M and A in MAD. The new nuclear powers such as Iran and DPRK may not care if they can get away with it though.

There doesn't seem to be any consensus among experts that Australia, let alone NZ would be a target in a modern nuclear war, for example: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/secrets-out-soviets-did-not-target-cities-20120805-23ny1.html

I don't think any political leader is waking up tomorrow thinking that they could get away with an all out nuclear war, but there is certainly the possibility of armies moving nuclear weapons closer to conflict areas, until eventually a tactical weapon is used.

There has been more than one occasion when there was evidence of a nuclear attack or commanders had the authority to use a nuclear weapon and they didn't take the next steps toward launching a nuclear weapon at the enemy. We have been lucky so far, but it would be truly mad to think this means that MAD will protect us indefinitely.

The link you provided didn't say that there would be no nuclear attacks on Australia, rather that the targets would be more likely to be targets of military value and not population centres. US military bases, electronic surveillance centres, military comminations infrastructure, or a naval base that might resupply US submarines, could easily be on the list of targets.

#include <standard.disclaimer>

empacher48

347 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2950193 3-Aug-2022 14:54

alexx:
possibly the Mt John satellite tracking station (no longer operational?) and a few others.

Geez, that tracking station was dismantled in the late 70’s. Since 1980 it’s only been used as a research facility run by the University of Canterbury and as a tourist destination since the mid 2000’s.

I’d think of something more valuable you’d want use a nuke on than a tourist site, small town and about a million rabbits..

Scratch that, the farmers around there would love to use a nuke to get rid of the rabbits once and for all.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2950256 3-Aug-2022 15:49

Rikkitic:

The secretary-general of the United Nations has just issued a warning that the world is on the verge of nuclear annihilation. What would happen to us here if there was a major nuke exchange in Europe/America? Not total destruction, but substantial attacks on cities and military targets on both sides. How would that affect New Zealand? Radioactive cloud? Climate damage? Collateral effects of strikes on Australia? Would it become On the Beach here or could we get through it cockroach-fashion?

in the short term, nothing other than rise in Auckland house prices

Batman

Mad Scientist
29041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2950263 3-Aug-2022 15:54

WyleECoyoteNZ:

A quick google search reveals countries with Nuclear weapons as:

- USA

- Russia

- France

- China

- UK

- Pakistan

- India

- Israel

- North Korea

I think it would be safe to say it Nuclear world war broke out, the planet is likely more stuffed than it is now.

Best course of action, put your head between your legs and kiss your butt goodbye....😁

how many electric cars and busses do NZ have to convert to offset radioactive radiation clouds?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2950269 3-Aug-2022 15:58

Ge0rge:

The overwhelming majority of our population live in a concrete jungle, about as far away from the production of beef, lamb and pork as you can get. Once the fuel runs out (we don't make that here), there will be no way to transport the produce we make much further than a day or two by horse.

The lights may stay on for a while, but without spare parts, that will become less and less reliable. Those with PV and batteries might fare a little better, and those with PV and without batteries will be looking at how they can override the anti-islanding technology in their inverters.

The earth will carry on, probably better for being rid of us.

i think it's fair to say in such a scenario those who already own nothing will have nothing to worry about, and the more you own the more there is to worry.

a person who controls the warheads naturally fall into the latter group.

thus only a psychiatrically insane person would do this.

out of the owners of such warheads i can think of only 2 who are potentially insane - Putin (definitely, maybe), Kim (maybe, maybe not), in 2024 potentially Trump if he is not legally barred from running (maybe not insane but may be crazy)

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2950318 3-Aug-2022 17:14

Batman:

i think it's fair to say in such a scenario those who already own nothing will have nothing to worry about, and the more you own the more there is to worry.

a person who controls the warheads naturally fall into the latter group.

thus only a psychiatrically insane person would do this.

out of the owners of such warheads i can think of only 2 who are potentially insane - Putin (definitely, maybe), Kim (maybe, maybe not), in 2024 potentially Trump if he is not legally barred from running (maybe not insane but may be crazy)

Right. Except if the owner of a nuke believes that in 2025 they have a 90% chance of being dead if they do nothing, vs an 89% chance of being dead if they nuke Ukraine (for example). The fact that in the latter case you own nothing but smoking ruins is trumped by "being alive". In which case it's rational to fire the nukes (assuming, I think rightly, that they don't care much about the damage they do to other people, because that's also trumped by "being alive").

As per Sun Tzu: When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. This does not mean that the enemy is to be allowed to escape.

i.e. you don't want to be fighting someone to the death, because that will be a tough fight (as per the Azovstal Steel Works). In this case, allow the dictator a way to get to 2025 and still be alive without pressing the nuke button.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8