Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Post by Smitty-48 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:42 pm

KerningChameleon wrote:So, Smitty, since you've got this whole chess game figured out, how's about you win us the lottery and answer the million dollah question: Is the draw inevitable? Is it truly a matter of when, not if?
Quantum mechanics; it has happened an infinite number of times already, it has also not happened an infinite number of times, the million dollar answer is; yes and no, at the same time, in infinite parallels.

If you do happen to burn in a nuclear fire, I wouldn't be too concerned about it, one; being instantly vaporized is actually a good way to go, and two; there are infinite number of you's, this is not the only you, you lived on to die at a ripe old age in your sleep, in an infinite number of parallel realities, so it's all good, everybody gotta die sometime, Kerning, but there are more Chameleons where that came from, thus, it's all win-win in the end.

Are we in a universe where this happens inevitably? Perhaps, but due to the nature of reality, it actually doesn't matter. It happens and doesn't happen, but turns out, happening and not happening, are actually one and the same.

The older you get, the less and less General Relativity matters, once you reach middle age, it's all about Quantum Mechanics from there, to wit, only the young, need be concerned about the future, for the not young anymore, all that matters is the infinite nows, which, so far so good, from where I'm sitting at least. /shrugs.
Nec Aspera Terrent

KerningChameleon
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:53 am

Re: Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Post by KerningChameleon » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:16 pm

Even if Many Worlds is right, I couldn't give a damn. Who cares about the infinite immortal Chameleons and the infinite corpse ones, every single one of them can all get fucked as far as I'm concerned. There's only one Kerning that matters to me, and that's the one meatsack in the one specific reality I've currently hitched my consciousness to. Until we develop the ability to develop and maintain offworld colonies out of missile range (spoilers: we won't, stop holding your breath on that one, someone would probably just start smuggling nukes on supply rockets to their special snowflake Mars shelter anyway), I by simple self-interest have to be concerned whether the biosphere I'm living in continues to be favorable to organic existence or not.

So, yeah, not old enough to not care about nuclear annihilation yet, sorry. Curse of the young, and all that.

Also, a good chunk of them parallel copies probably hold the same opinion of me, so here's a rosy middle finger to you too, parallel-self.
"Old World Blues.' It refers to those so obsessed with the past they can't see the present, much less the future, for what it is. They stare into the what-was...as the realities of their world continue on around them." -Fallout New Vegas

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Post by Smitty-48 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:27 pm

Well, to be fair, you asked the million dollar question, you ask the million dollar question, you get the million dollar answer, which is of course; "quantum mechanics".

Now, if you just want the thousand dollar answer to the thousand dollar question? Yeah, I think there will be a nuclear war at some point, it will kick off assymetrically, in a peripheral theater, like; India-Pakistan, to India-China, to China-Russia, the USA gets dragged in last, kicking and screaming, but inexorably none the less.

That being said, the sun comes up the next day, life goes on, civilization recovers from this war as it has from all previous wars, it just takes a little longer than usual, but ultimately, not an extinction event. I mean, it might be an extincition event for quite a few meat sacks around now, but the Big Green Biosphere Machine just rolls on without you, which, that's going to happen anyways, one way or the other, so again; it's all win-win in the end.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
kybkh
Posts: 2824
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:33 am

Re: Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Post by kybkh » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:33 pm

https://www.pscp.tv/XHNews/1MnxnmoNaMVJO?t=7

Only if Truman wasn't such a pussy....
“I've got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life, nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme..." - Obama

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Post by Smitty-48 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:38 pm

China and India and Pakistan, this is exponentially worse ju-ju than America and Russia, the problem at this juncture is really more about nuclear contagion, from the batshit crazy Subcontinent.

The thing about America v. Russia; it's bipolar, when it comes to hydrogen bombs and delivery systems at least, it's basically symmetrical, and there is decades of stabilizing protocol built in from the Cold War, it's a stalemate, and it's a stable one, whereas on the Subcontinent, everything is new again, all the batshit crazy stuff from the unstable early Cold War, is kicking off down there now, and it's not symmetrical, India is much more powerful than Pakistan, and that makes Pakistan do crazy shit to try to offset its inherent weakness, but it's tripolar, so when Pakistan does crazy shit which sets India off, and then India responds, that just sets China off, then China eggs Pakistan on as a proxy, so there's an unstable circular escalation dynamic in play, which just keeps feeding on itself, getting more batshit cray-cray all the time as it goes.

Pakistan doesn't have strategic delivery systems, so what they are doing is loading up on tactical and intertheater weapons, and this is where the Americans and Soviets went in the 1980's, which got so scary, that it literally was too scary to have anymore, and both sides in the Cold War walked it back, because it was too destabilizing, but Pakistan doesn't have anything else in the nuclear quiver, this is all they got, so they just keep doubling down on tactical and intermediate, which is a powderkeg, so many more vectors for the genie to get out of the bottle.

They've reverse engineered the Tomahawk cruise missile now, so they are all INF all the time, and they are cranking out 100kt yield warheads for these GLCM's, like hot cakes, and INF comes in under the coverage, which, this puts India in the position of having to be on a hair trigger at all times, there's no time and space, there's no buffer zone, there's no warning zone, India is eyeball to eyeball with a Pakistani INF deterent which doesn't provide for any reaction time nor warning, but when India ups the ante to try to deter this, then that makes China escalate to counter India's hair trigger no notice deterent, while at the same time, the Chinese prop the Pakistani cray-cray up, because that forces the Indians to fight on two fronts, I mean, it's a mess, and its getting worse all the time.

It's like having a Cold War, with Anglo-America, France, and the Soviet Union, except all right on each other's borders, in a three way border dispute, eyeball to eyeball, with nothing to buffer in between them, it's all point blank, you don't even have 30 minutes to decide what to do in a crisis, it's more like 3 minutes, and that's not two way, that's three way, everybody backs against the wall at all times, and, everybody is deploying intermediate nuclear forces which are inherently designed to come in under the coverage in a preemptive strike. Bad. Ju. Ju.

Like, if you replaced Mexico with Pakistan, and Canada with China, then you have some idea as to what it's like to be India, and how much more tense they are, compared to America and Russia. Imagine if ISIS ran Mexico, and they had nuclear tipped cruise missiles in Jaurez, and from the other direction, instead of Canadian tourists, the People's Liberation Army of China; methinks America would be operating quite a bit closer to the brink then, no doubt, you'd be at DEFCON 3 leaning towards DEFCON 2, twenty four seven three six five, and that's pretty much how it is for India.

India doesn't have a "DEFCON 4" and "DEFCON 5", and they can't even be too confortable at "DEFCON 3", because there is never enough time and space, to ever stand down that far, when you are eyeball to eyeball with it, backs against the wall at all times, and at least one of your adversaries is Islamic Jihadist cray-cray, and the other is none too sensible neither, even if not as cray-cray.
Nec Aspera Terrent

Zlaxer
Posts: 5377
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:04 am

Re: Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Post by Zlaxer » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:11 pm

How long till Directed Energy weapons render air platforms obsolete? Right now distance is an issue bc atmosphere distorts - but i've seem some public docs showing that experimental systems applying that mirror balancing tech from land based telescopes has been very successful...

User avatar
C-Mag
Posts: 28082
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Post by C-Mag » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:22 pm

kybkh wrote:https://www.pscp.tv/XHNews/1MnxnmoNaMVJO?t=7

Only if Truman wasn't such a pussy....

PLATA O PLOMO


Image


Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Post by Smitty-48 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:30 pm

Zlaxer wrote:How long till Directed Energy weapons render air platforms obsolete? Right now distance is an issue bc atmosphere distorts - but i've seem some public docs showing that experimental systems applying that mirror balancing tech from land based telescopes has been very successful...
A laser gun can be blown up pretty easily, it's not like air defenses, no matter how fancy, last very long against an American combined arms air campaign, like, whatever your most capable air defense systems are, those are the things which America destroys first, usually within the first day or two, and I don't think it's gonna make much of a difference if it is a radar guided anti-aircraft gun, or a radar guided laser gun...


... can be blowed up real good, either way.

Nec Aspera Terrent

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Post by Smitty-48 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:47 pm

See, this gets to the larger point of the OP, there is no gun, missile, or laser, which will defeat the United States on the battlefield, if you're going to get into a conventional, technological. symetrical war with the United States of America, you're going to lose, and that includes the Russians, and this is where the non-nuclear rubber would meet the road, if the Russians got into a conventional war with America, they are going to lose and lose badly, yes, they would get their shots in, yes, it would be a massively destructive fast paced blitzkrieg, which, ultimately, the Russians would start to lose and it wouldn't take that long before it started to get ugly for them, because America is not just one weight class above the Russians, it's more like two or three, and "directed energy" weapons would not save them...

...but therein in lies the danger, what do the Russians do, when they start to lose, and their whole conventional force structure starts to unravel in the face of an American advance? There's only two places they can go, one is humiliating capitulation, the other is escalation, and would they really choose humilating capitulation, Treaty of Versailles imposed upon them? Methinks not.

They have the hydrogen bombs, if they start to lose the conventional war, shit it gonna get real nuclear real fast. Any conventional war with Russia is going to have an inherent maritime component, America being the eternal seapower, centre of gravity on the high seas, so it would just be a matter of time, before somebody put a torpedo under a keel, and then the fur is really gonna fly, and it's just a hop and a skip and little tiny jump, from there to a full on strategic nuclear standoff at the brink.
Nec Aspera Terrent

User avatar
SuburbanFarmer
Posts: 25085
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

Post by SuburbanFarmer » Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:05 pm

Smitty-48 wrote:

...but therein in lies the danger, what do the Russians do, when they start to lose, and their whole conventional force structure starts to unravel in the face of an American advance? There's only two places they can go, one is humiliating capitulation, the other is escalation, and would they really choose humilating capitulation, Treaty of Versailles imposed upon them? Methinks not.

They have the hydrogen bombs, if they start to lose the conventional war, shit it gonna get real nuclear real fast. .
Why? There's nothing to gain, even in the event of conventional war loss. MAD is still very much in effect, so what's the point? Wiping out the planet as a big middle finger? Even Ivan's not that crazy, when all the chips are down.
SJWs are a natural consequence of corporatism.

Formerly GrumpyCatFace

https://youtu.be/CYbT8-rSqo0