[video=youtube;PCblCImmgu8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCblCImmgu8[/video]
[QUOTE]A frightening mockumentary made in a parallel world in which the popular uprisings against the communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989 lead to a very different outcome. Soviet President Gorbachev visits East Germany, promoting Perestroika and Glasnost, which leads to mass demonstrations against the hardline East German government. A successful military coup then takes place in the Soviet Union which installs a fanatical communist General in the Kremlin and sweeps away all of Gorbachev’s reforms.
The Soviet Union takes increasingly provocative action against NATO, and the West retaliates in kind with increasing sanctions against Russia. The Soviet General orders the invasion of West Germany, which does not go well for him as Warsaw Pact forces are pushed backed well inside the Soviet Union's satellite States.
Western leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Bill Clinton are shown making public comments about the worsening international situation (of course, their words are taken out of context to make them fit the events of the mockumentary). Finally the Soviet General presses the nuclear button, and during a live television news broadcast in Washington DC air raid sirens start sounding.
The 'documentary' is made some time in the future, showing the events that led to the outbreak of the Third World War, and interviewing the surviving key players on both sides to give their view of the events and their part in them.[/QUOTE]
Oh hey that's David Keith McCallum as the narrator. Neat
Nuclear weapons should be banned, period.
Risking our very existence as a specie with the possession of these weapons is a huge mistake. I would rather sacrifice a lot of people than destroying humanity.
Christ, that shit is nightmare fuel.
It's strange to think how the 80's were just a butterfly's flutter away from nuclear war.
[QUOTE=Benx303;51621051]Nuclear weapons should be banned, period.
Risking our very existence as a specie with the possession of these weapons is a huge mistake. I would rather sacrifice a lot of people than destroying humanity.[/QUOTE]
How do you go about banning them?
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51621190]How do you go about banning them?[/QUOTE]
by nuking countries that don't ban them! The perfect move tbh
The only way you will enforce a nuclear weapons ban is with nuclear weapons.
[editline]4th January 2017[/editline]
Ok, finished watching it. It was dumb.
The first half was good. The escalation was pretty much how I'd imagining it happen and it wasn't out of the blue like some people like to postulate.
The second half however was unimaginably dumb. I'll mostly ignore the smaller things like the lack of chemical weapons or tactical nuclear weapons in the opening engagements and jump straight to the end.
The Soviet nuclear attack makes no sense; there is no reason to launch that attack. What would have been far more reasonable was the Soviet using nuclear weapons tactically near the front lines to achieve a military objective rather than a single weapon in the UK. Nato would then have responded with their own tactical weapons proportionally or disproportionally depending on the strategic objective desired (take a look at the concept of inter-war deterrence). Going straight to a large-scale strategic war without giving tactical nuclear weapons a go to either achieve your military objectives or shock the enemy to the negotiating table is retarded.
Both sides build huge tactical weapon arsenals for a reason.
[QUOTE=download;51621421]The only way you will enforce a nuclear weapons ban is with nuclear weapons.
[editline]4th January 2017[/editline]
Ok, finished watching it. It was dumb.
The first half was good. The escalation was pretty much how I'd imagining it happen and it wasn't out of the blue like some people like to postulate.
The second half however was unimaginably dumb. I'll mostly ignore the smaller things like the lack of chemical weapons or tactical nuclear weapons in the opening engagements and jump straight to the end.
The Soviet nuclear attack makes no sense; there is no reason to launch that attack. What would have been far more reasonable was the Soviet using nuclear weapons tactically near the front lines to achieve a military objective rather than a single weapon in the UK. Nato would then have responded with their own tactical weapons proportionally or disproportionally depending on the strategic objective desired (take a look at the concept of inter-war deterrence). Going straight to a large-scale strategic war without giving tactical nuclear weapons a go to either achieve your military objectives or shock the enemy to the negotiating table is retarded.
Both sides build huge tactical weapon arsenals for a reason.[/QUOTE]
iirc that's kind of how threads was like. it started with tactical nukes being used against military objectives until it escalated the point where the real nukes were launched at civilian targets/factories
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51621139]Christ, that shit is nightmare fuel.
It's strange to think how the 80's were just a butterfly's flutter away from nuclear war.[/QUOTE]
If you think this is bad, watch this.
[video=youtube;9GJttnC8PoA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJttnC8PoA[/video]
Or Threads.
[QUOTE=Benx303;51621051]Nuclear weapons should be banned, period.
Risking our very existence as a specie with the possession of these weapons is a huge mistake. I would rather sacrifice a lot of people than destroying humanity.[/QUOTE]
Well, they are banned and haven't been used against an enemy since 1945. You can rally the world and have everyone mutually agree to get rid of the arsenal but everyone will save one or a thousand, [i]just in case we need it later[/i].
Mutual annihilation is the consequence of using a nuclear weapon in this day and age, and thats all we really need to make sure nobody uses a nuke. Plus it's not a bad idea to have them in case some non-human enemy appears in the distant future.
it's a bloody lucky thing we avoided nuclear war to say the least
still bad with how large some arsenals are and future risks from countries developing or expanding/modernising arsenals, but it's good that a lot of nuclear disarmament has already happened in addition to a ban on testing
threads is still the scariest shit
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;51623088]If you think this is bad, watch this.
[video=youtube;9GJttnC8PoA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJttnC8PoA[/video]
Or Threads.[/QUOTE]
Those bomb shelters tho
I can imagine back then there were some seedy types trying to make a quick buck on people's fears of a nuclear war. HEY COME BUY THIS UNDERGROUND BOMB SHELTER FOR 10,000 BUCKS and it's just a van buried underneath some dirt. I mean if people do that shit now, I'd be surprised if they didn't back then.
[QUOTE=Benx303;51621051]Nuclear weapons should be banned, period.
Risking our very existence as a specie with the possession of these weapons is a huge mistake. I would rather sacrifice a lot of people than destroying humanity.[/QUOTE]
you realize nuclear weapons have been the biggest force for peace of the 70 years, right?
[QUOTE=Judas;51625764]you realize nuclear weapons have been the biggest force for peace of the 70 years, right?[/QUOTE]
As horrific and dangerous as they are, the threat of mutual nuclear holocaust is probably what kept a WWIII from actually happening, especially during those proxy wars.
[QUOTE=Judas;51625764]you realize nuclear weapons have been the biggest force for peace of the 70 years, right?[/QUOTE]
All it takes is one nuclear war to render these 70 years of relative peace meaningless. MAD is a very dangerous balance.
[QUOTE=Judas;51625764]you realize nuclear weapons have been the biggest force for peace of the 70 years, right?[/QUOTE]
i don't think they've been a force for peace at all
if nuclear weapons promote peace, then every country ought to have them so as to create a worldwide MAD instead of only a collection of them being nuclear-armed
[QUOTE=Judas;51625764]you realize nuclear weapons have been the biggest force for peace of the 70 years, right?[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%9389"]There[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990%E2%80%932002"]have been[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%9310"]tons[/URL] of wars since 1945. Nuclear weapons have merely changed how wars are conducted and made it so that it's mostly by proxy for the big players.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;51626639]All it takes is one nuclear war to render these 70 years of relative peace meaningless. MAD is a very dangerous balance.[/QUOTE]
But at the same time, if we get rid of our nukes, what happens if another country develops them? It's fine for the majority of countries in the world, but even reasonable sources are starting to say that North Korea's nuclear weapons programme is on the verge of producing viable weapons.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51626724]i don't think they've been a force for peace at all
if nuclear weapons promote peace, then every country ought to have them so as to create a worldwide MAD instead of only a collection of them being nuclear-armed[/QUOTE]
No. Unstable and smaller nations shouldn't have nukes, they won't be able to provide guarantees against nukes falling into the wrong hands. A small club of influential nuclear-armed countries is enough to guarantee no world war, a couple more ([b]stable![/b]) countries maybe, but going much further will destabilize things.
[editline]5th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51626813][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%9389"]There[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990%E2%80%932002"]have been[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%9310"]tons[/URL] of wars since 1945. Nuclear weapons have merely changed how wars are conducted and made it so that it's mostly by proxy for the big players.[/QUOTE]
As cynical as it might be, smaller nations getting fucked all to hell and back is much, [i]much[/i] more preferable to a world war.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51626813][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%9389"]There[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990%E2%80%932002"]have been[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%9310"]tons[/URL] of wars since 1945. Nuclear weapons have merely changed how wars are conducted and made it so that it's mostly by proxy for the big players.[/QUOTE]
And we havent seen a war between major players since WW2 because of Nuclear weaponry. The reason we dont have big wars where 80 million people die in 5 years is because of the threat of MAD. The reason NATO and the USSR never fought directly is because of MAD. If Nukes didnt exist, then the NATO and the USSR would have happily started WW3.
Proxy wars are preferable to world wars. Nukes make peace, really shitty peace, but the other option is worse.
[QUOTE=gudman;51627009]No. Unstable and smaller nations shouldn't have nukes, they won't be able to provide guarantees against nukes falling into the wrong hands. A small club of influential nuclear-armed countries is enough to guarantee no world war, a couple more ([b]stable![/b]) countries maybe, but going much further will destabilize things.[/quote]
so what do you do when a formerly powerful nation becomes weaker, or a small nation develops nukes?
[quote]As cynical as it might be, smaller nations getting fucked all to hell and back is much, [i]much[/i] more preferable to a world war.[/QUOTE]
or it might just be an ad hoc explanation used to justify why some countries can have nukes but others can't - based largely on who managed to get them first
plus there's the open secret that israel has nukes for instance
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51627066]And we havent seen a war between major players since WW2 because of Nuclear weaponry. The reason we dont have big wars where 80 million people die in 5 years is because of the threat of MAD. The reason NATO and the USSR never fought directly is because of MAD. If Nukes didnt exist, then the NATO and the USSR would have happily started WW3.
Proxy wars are preferable to world wars. Nukes make peace, really shitty peace, but the other option is worse.[/QUOTE]
the only reason there hasn't been a war is more luck than anything else
remember that wars begin with escalation that ends only with nuclear attack
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51627072]so what do you do when a formerly powerful nation becomes weaker, or a small nation develops nukes?
or it might just be an ad hoc explanation used to justify why some countries can have nukes but others can't - based largely on who managed to get them first
plus there's the open secret that israel has nukes for instance[/QUOTE]
If a nation destabilizes, like Pakistan, then a larger nation should seize said Nukes.
If a smaller nation tries to develop nukes, like Iran, then you sanction their asses off until they revise that policy.
Israel having nukes is probably one of the things that allows them to remain a nation state when everyone around them is completely hostile to them.
[editline]5th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51627072]so what do you do when a formerly powerful nation becomes weaker, or a small nation develops nukes?
or it might just be an ad hoc explanation used to justify why some countries can have nukes but others can't - based largely on who managed to get them first
plus there's the open secret that israel has nukes for instance
the only reason there hasn't been a war is more luck than anything else
remember that wars begin with escalation that ends only with nuclear attack[/QUOTE]
Theres only been one war that ended with Nuclear attack and there havent been any like it since, because of the threat of nuclear attack. The days of millions of casualties is over because of the threat of MAD.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51627083]If a nation destabilizes, like Pakistan, then a larger nation should seize said Nukes.[/QUOTE]
that really doesn't sound like a good idea
who should seize them? what assurances do you have that the conquered won't use them? etc
[quote]If a smaller nation tries to develop nukes, like Iran, then you sanction their asses off until they revise that policy. [/quote]
we tried that with north korea and it didn't work at all
[quote]Israel having nukes is probably one of the things that allows them to remain a nation state when everyone around them is completely hostile to them.[/quote]
considering israel won multiple wars without nukes despite being outgunned, outnumbered and surrounded without the use of nuclear weaponry i wonder what use nukes are, especially when your neighbours don't have them
why can israel have nukes but not their neighbours, especially when they often complain about israeli aggression? why does israel get to have nukes but not Iran?
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51627083]Theres only been one war that ended with Nuclear attack and there havent been any like it since, because of the threat of nuclear attack. The days of millions of casualties is over because of the threat of MAD.[/QUOTE]
uhh what do you mean wars in which millions of casualties are over?
chinese civil war? korean war? vietnam war? ethiopia? iraq-iran war? the numerous wars that took place in sudan, liberia, angola?
what about the recent syrian civil war and other associated spillover conflicts? hundreds of thousands of people have died in Syria alone
over 5 million people died in the Congo war between 1998 and 2008
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51627190]that really doesn't sound like a good idea
who should seize them? what assurances do you have that the conquered won't use them? etc
we tried that with north korea and it didn't work at all
considering israel won multiple wars without nukes despite being outgunned, outnumbered and surrounded without the use of nuclear weaponry i wonder what use nukes are, especially when your neighbours don't have them
why can israel have nukes but not their neighbours, especially when they often complain about israeli aggression? why does israel get to have nukes but not Iran?[/QUOTE]
Like I said, a larger nation, like the US, Russia, ect. Should seize the nukes in the event of destabilization so they dont fall into the wrong hands.
North Korea says they have Nukes and the capabilities but they more than likely dont. Their nukes are more akin to dirty bombs than anything else iirc. Also MAD. It also worked with Iran as far as I know.
Israels done fine but theyve also considered using Nukes when things got desperate, and the reason they considered it is because their neighbors didnt have them
Iran and their other neighbors shouldnt have them because theyre at extreme risk of destabalizing (IE Egypt).
Some nations that have Nukes shouldnt have them, but major powers should.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51627204]Like I said, a larger nation, like the US, Russia, ect. Should seize the nukes in the event of destabilization so they dont fall into the wrong hands.[/quote]
has anything like this happened before, and how do you ensure this is done successful and you don't cause a nuclear war in the process? how do you ensure the cooperation of the international community?
let's pretend for the sake of argument that a nation which russia and china both respectively had interests in was destabilised, and they both disagree over who is to intervene? what happens?
[quote]North Korea says they have Nukes and the capabilities but they more than likely dont. Their nukes are more akin to dirty bombs than anything else iirc. Also MAD. It also worked with Iran as far as I know.[/quote]
except sanctions haven't stopped them developing nuclear weaponry and they are still continuing. also they do have at least one successful hydrogen bomb test, so you can't really discount them anymore
north korea is a nuclear-armed state in spite of their extreme isolation, lack of support, and poor base to build from.
[quote]Iran and their other neighbors shouldnt have them because theyre at extreme risk of destabalizing (IE Egypt).
Some nations that have Nukes shouldnt have them, but major powers should.[/QUOTE]
extreme risk of destabilising? based on what metric? who are you to pick and choose which countries can have nukes, and why? who is to enforce this?
This reminds me of a mockumentary (the name of escapes me) about WW1 but the Germans were alien tripods :alien:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51627072]so what do you do when a formerly powerful nation becomes weaker, or a small nation develops nukes?[/quote]
1) Intervention. Yeah, actually going in with special forces and peacekeepers.
2) Depends on the nation. If you really don't want them to have nukes - destroy their economy until they can't sustain their nuclear programme. It gets complicated when talking about countries like North Korea and the like, who get support from outside, but then it's entirely on the country who's doing the supporting.
[quote]or it might just be an ad hoc explanation used to justify why some countries can have nukes but others can't - based largely on who managed to get them first[/quote]
Even if it is, it works. Just like the UN, which does fuck all at preventing wars [i]in general[/i], but does a reasonable job at preventing wars between the big dogs.
[quote]plus there's the open secret that israel has nukes for instance[/QUOTE]
Everyone's evidently pretty okay with it, otherwise Israel would be a failed state by now.
[QUOTE=gudman;51627994]1) Intervention. Yeah, actually going in with special forces and peacekeepers.[/quote]
Who heads these forces? What do you do when multiple powers are involved? When the area is contested? What if a particularly nutty tinpot dictator seizes the nuclear weapons and threatens to nuke a few cities if the outsiders intervene?
[quote]2) Depends on the nation. If you really don't want them to have nukes - destroy their economy until they can't sustain their nuclear programme. It gets complicated when talking about countries like North Korea and the like, who get support from outside, but then it's entirely on the country who's doing the supporting. [/QUOTE]
the biggest problem here though is the fact that nobody wanted north korea to have nuclear weaponry. even china is getting upset with north korea recently for it, and despite sanctions and a state of near-impoverishment in addition to famine it has yet to deter the country
if a country as impoverished and isolated as they can develop a functioning nuclear program, what does that tell you about other nations?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51627257]has anything like this happened before, and how do you ensure this is done successful and you don't cause a nuclear war in the process? how do you ensure the cooperation of the international community?[/quote]
It hasn't really happened before because, for the most part, stable nations are the ones who hold nukes and thats the way it should be. The closest example I can give you is the USSR falling, and because no one really intervened to protect their nuclear storage, 3 briefcase nukes went missing. It's more than likely a clerical error but we may never find out where those nuclear weapons went.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51627257]
let's pretend for the sake of argument that a nation which russia and china both respectively had interests in was destabilised, and they both disagree over who is to intervene? what happens?[/quote]
If Russia and China can't come to an agreement on where, when, what, and how, then one of them should just act and do it. Protection of nuclear weapons is far more important than petty politics, and both China and Russia have plenty of nukes in the first place so I doubt much squabbling would occur on who intervenes to take them.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51627257]
except sanctions haven't stopped them developing nuclear weaponry and they are still continuing. also they do have at least one successful hydrogen bomb test, so you can't really discount them anymore
north korea is a nuclear-armed state in spite of their extreme isolation, lack of support, and poor base to build from. [/quote]
It worked with Iran since they've halted their Nuclear weapons program and lost around 500 billion $ because of economic sanctions. It doesn't work with Korea since they're being supplied with nuclear materials by a third party (most likely), and sanctions don't work since they almost don't even have an economy outside of their military. Theres not much you can do in NK's case without direct military intervention, but theres better reasons to do that than their nuclear programs.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51627257]
extreme risk of destabilising? based on what metric? who are you to pick and choose which countries can have nukes, and why? who is to enforce this?[/QUOTE]
What do you mean what risk? Were you in a coma during the arab springs or? Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Oman, Kuwait, ect. Literally all of these countries went under some sort of civil unrest in 2011, with a couple of these completely falling.
Syria is literally still in the midst of a civil war and Egypt only recently started to get calm.
Who am I to pick which country gets nukes? I wasn't aware I had a say in that. The World Nuclear Association, World Weapons Council, and the UN are generally the one who keep tabs on who has nukes and who should and shouldn't be building them. Generally the WNA audits nuclear sites and reports to the UN on their findings, and the UN will take necessary action if someone is enriching uranium for non peaceful means. Thats what happened with Iran.
[editline]5th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51628103]Who heads these forces? What do you do when multiple powers are involved? When the area is contested? What if a particularly nutty tinpot dictator seizes the nuclear weapons and threatens to nuke a few cities if the outsiders intervene?[/quote]
You're asking for specific answers to your vague question.
To give an example, if Pakistan, a state which has not complied with any nuclear treaties at all, were to destabilize and refused any US or Indian intervention, then the US should forcefully remove the nukes from the country before it gets to the point where a dictator would seize them and use them or threaten their use.
This is all completely situational and hasn't really happened in the past outside of the Soviet Union falling. We won't know what the proper course of action is until its already happened. But really, any country would be justified in intervening in a conflict if it meant the prevention of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of a terrorist group or radical government.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51628103]
the biggest problem here though is the fact that nobody wanted north korea to have nuclear weaponry. even china is getting upset with north korea recently for it, and despite sanctions and a state of near-impoverishment in addition to famine it has yet to deter the country
if a country as impoverished and isolated as they can develop a functioning nuclear program, what does that tell you about other nations?[/QUOTE]
It's not a perfect system but it works for the most part. North Korea isn't as dumb as the world thinks it is, those Nukes aren't meant to be launched at the US, Japan, or SK, they're to be held onto to prevent any military intervention into the country, you know, because MAD...
Should NK have nukes? Absolutely not. But will those Nukes prevent anyone from fucking with them militarily in the future? More than likely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.