MovieChat Forums > The Day After (1983) Discussion > Is nuclear war inevitable?

Is nuclear war inevitable?


______________
History is written by the victors.   

reply

The weapons are still there & people are more evil now than ever, sadly I would say yes, there will be a nuclear exchange, probably sooner than we think & now no one will be ready.

reply

people are more evil now than ever


Strongly disagree. People are no more "evil" now than they were 100, 500, 1000 years ago. The advent of the internet just exposes more of the general population to each other's stupidity than ever before. Also, the 24-hour endless "news" cycle exposes us all to glorified depictions of violence and destruction that were always there before. We simply see it more often than we used to. It's a perception issue, not an increase in the degree of evil.

Countries who possess large nuclear stockpiles will never use them on each other because of the M.A.D. principle of all-out nuclear warfare. Even if there were to be a nuclear exchange, it would be of the tactical variety and very limited. Unfortunately, the disposal aspect of currently existing nuclear weapons presents an almost insurmountable challenge in getting rid of them safely. There will always be unspent Pu-239 sitting around until it all decays which will take thousands and thousands of years.



-Rod

reply

The issue with the M.A.D, is that it gets more and more critics and counter-theories.
Along with the fact that the stockpiles has been reduced, the M.A.D principle is loosing ground to "a winnable nuclear war", or "a war, winnable, substituted with nukes" and "limited nuclear exchange" and so on.

All this, along with new technologies and more efficient weapons-designs, makes it easier to consider using them in a conflict.

IMO, a limited use, is still undo-able, if we're talking about a conflict involving nuclear states.
Because, once you open the nuclear Pandora, the fear of retaliation is still so central, that either a preemptive full-scale attack, or a full-scale response is very likely.

So, when considering that, why even try a limited, tactical nuclear strike in the first place?
- And thus we have a catch-22, sort of.



As far as I understand it, the nuclear material for warheads needs to be replaced/replenished periodically, so it seems that a nuclear weapon has a "best used before" date, luckily.
It's not that long ago that Bush (I think) decided to route more money, to refresh the nuclear weapons, since it was long overdue.
They may still go bang though, but I suppose their efficiency drops after a while in storage.

reply

No, nuclear war is not inevitable.
I don't even think it is likely between Russia and the US.
Middle East as a possible theatre is another story

reply

Apparently there are enough nuclear weapons (some stolen, missing and unaccounted for) that if all of them went off at once, it's be enough to at least blow up the planet three times (not that there'd even be much left after the first round of those went off). Because there are psychopaths and nuts on power trips a lot these days (at least, there seem to be more than there used to be or maybe that's just media talking) I think sooner or later some idiot will push the button that sends everything into chaos. Humans are stupid, and have been stupid for as long as they've been around, and sometimes even though there are still plenty of intelligent people out there, there just aren't enough of them to have much of a say in what happens to our world. We're more concerned about global warming rising temperatures by 2 degrees or what the latest trashy pop music song is on the radio than we are about the possibility of nuclear destruction, for pete's sake. We've seen Bikini Atoll, Hiroshima, Chernobyl, the effects of radiation, birth defects, deformities, cancer, internal injuries, blindness, mental deficiencies and ultimately radiation poisoning and death - and yet you hardly hear about it at all in the 21st century. The world will go, and not with a bang, but with a whimper. :(

Canada, eh? 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 :)

"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City

reply

Apparently there are enough nuclear weapons (some stolen, missing and unaccounted for) that if all of them went off at once, it's be enough to at least blow up the planet three times (not that there'd even be much left after the first round of those went off).


Ummm... NO!

There are not enough nuclear weapons to be even a fraction of a percent of the necessary force to actually "blow up the planet"


Destroy modern human civilization?
Yes.

Explode the planet itself?

Get the fark outta here with that bullsh!t



I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

I didn't literally mean the planet itself would explode. I'm referring to the inhabitants of the planet.

Canada, eh? 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 :)

"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City

reply

You're still being inexact and likely wrong.
If by "inhabitants" you mean, "kill all life on Earth"... you're still wrong.

Nuclear war, even an all out nuclear exchange is not some Extinction Level Event.

We can destroy Modern Human civilization. That's about it. We would not even destroy all human life. just collapse our way of life. It would be a disaster of epic proportions, don't get me wrong. And it would end up killing a vast majory of human life (mostly through the collapse of our modern infrastructure, not the direct result of the attacks).
But most life would go on. Animals would likely flourish with the collapse of human society.

But "Blow up the Earth", even figuratively speaking, is wrong.

So no. Even if you weasel your meaning to get out of what you actually said for what you claim to have meant instead, you're still wrong.



I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Well, thank you, Mr. Pretentious, you've sure made my day... 😕

Canada, eh? 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 :)

"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City

reply

Nothing pretentious about it.
Just a study of actual facts rather than hyperbolic Hippy anti-nuke crap fron the 60's.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Congratulations. Why not just state what you want to say rather than being condescending about it? I just happened to read somewhere that "there are enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world at least three times over". Whether it's true or not I don't know, and frankly the majority of people have better things to do than to get right down to detailed specifics on this sort of thing.

Canada, eh? 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 :)

"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City

reply

Congratulations. Why not just state what you want to say rather than being condescending about it?


I did just state what I wanted to say.

YOU chose to read it with condescention.

That's on you.

With what tone you choose to read something, how you decide to interpret something, is out of my control. Dont blame me for your choices.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Just a study of actual facts rather than hyperbolic Hippy anti-nuke crap fron the 60's.


Right... in just assuming that everyone who isn't you or who doesn't read the same info as you is stupid or a hippie (by the way I don't read "hippy anti-nuke crap" in the slightest), that's condescending and an inaccurate perception. I don't think that "the world could be blown up three times over" is right or wrong, I just read it somewhere, not from some hippie protest thing, either. So you're some expert in facts about nuclear warfare? Whatever, go right ahead, perhaps you're right about the facts in question, but seriously, get over yourself! Somebody posts one little sentence and you're all over it like crazy. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, I don't know, and it's really not my problem anyhow. The post I originally made, right or wrong, is old by now and nothing to get hung up over.

Canada, eh? 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 :)

"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City

reply

The post I originally made, right or wrong, is old by now and nothing to get hung up over.

The original post, yes. It's old and I am not hung up on it.
I just pointed out that it's wrong. and that would have been the end of it.

You keep coming back again, and again, and again, defending your wrongful post and taking jabs back at me for correcting you...

... That's still fresh.


Right... in just assuming that everyone who isn't you or who doesn't read the same info as you is stupid

I do not do that nor did I ever claim you were stupid. That would be YOUR assumption of me.

So you're some expert in facts about nuclear warfare? Whatever, go right ahead, perhaps you're right about the facts in question, but seriously, get over yourself!


No. I never claimed to be an expert.
However, I probably am the closest thing to one you'll find posting regularly on the topic on these boards.
And before you even respond, No. That isn't my ego talking, I am not needing to "get over myself". That comes from the comments I've recieved on numerous posts where I have discussed the topic of nuclear weapons and their effects, to include from at least one person who is a Naval Nuclear Power School Graduate.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine, I'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. I'm not saying you're wrong, all I'm saying is that it's one stupid little sentence out of a post. It's not the end of the world, whether it's incorrect or not.

Canada, eh? 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 :)

"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City

reply

I'm not saying you're wrong, all I'm saying is that it's one stupid little sentence out of a post. It's not the end of the world, whether it's incorrect or not.


I never claimed it was. All I did was correct it and YOU got all bent out of shape for me doing so. And now accuse me of getting all bent out of shape in the first place, which I wasn't.
Again... That's on you.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

You just can't let it go can you? You've just always got to get in the last word.

You've responded six times? What the hell? You act like this drivel is important, you act like the other guy has a problem, you're the one boring the living HELL out of the board going off on some waste of time semantic mission of painstakingly scrutinizing this guys verbiage describing nuclear weapons used on the Earth.

You're not even discussing the topic. You've just, once again, found some semantic way to act like you're smart and bitch about some use of verbiage. You're like another mutated form of a grammar Nazi.

"Nothing pretentious about it"
"hyperbolic Hippy anti-nuke crap from the 60's" ???...no condescendence or pretention to see here 
"Ummm... NO!" What the hell are you shouting for?
"Get the fark outta here with that bullsh!t" That's the kind of stuff you get knocked out for when you say it to people's faces. It's funny how blind you are to the sheet you shovel out, and to what an acehole you are.

Do you actually take yourself seriously? Do you think anyone actually gives a sheet about this mind numbingly boring, egotistical semantic pissing match you're droning on and on and on about?

Other than you, no one even cares about this stupid, semantic "gotcha" you're whining about.

You are hilarious, these semantic "errors" you scour the net for every day so you can chime in with your Russia sized ego to declare someone used the incorrect form of an adjective "aha, you are ignorant!" you farking Hippy blah, blah crap from the 60's!"

What's so hilarious is that you aren't joking or putting on a show. This is really how to are. You literally take yourself this seriously and you actually live to search the net just to find someone you can disagree with and pull some "gotcha" Then you'll go on and on listening to yourself blather.

You've got to be the biggest NERD west of the Mississippi.

You are hilarious!!!! What a contrarian. What an argumentative "Controversialist"!


Was ist der Sinn des Lebens?

reply

rant rant rant, squeek squeek squeek...
You got nothing better to do than troll me constantly Hanz?

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

People may remember the metaphor of the "nuclear clock" that was used during the Cold War -- it was a way of indicating how imminent the outbreak of nuclear attack might be, before anyone thought of using traffic light colours. A typical alarm might say the nuclear clock was showing "11 minutes to midnight", say.

I thought the image had been retired, but apparently it's still maintained by some monitoring agencies, notably the UN, and according to a radio report I heard a month or so back, it's recently been advanced to two minutes to midnight. According to the UN, we are closer to a nuclear war now than we have ever been.

Scary.

Part of the issue, it said, is the increasing volatility of international politics; part is the fact that nuclear weapons are moving into hands of countries (such as Iran and North Korea) that are, shall we say, less constrained in the lengths they will go to in handling conflict; and part is that the simple increase in the number of hands potentially on nuclear triggers make it significantly more likely that something will go wrong.

So: Inevitable? Probably not. Likely? Apparently, yes.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

We only postponed it. Judgement Day is inevitable.

reply

I'm pretty confident there won't be a nuclear war. People are crazy, but not that crazy.

reply

Is nuclear war inevitable?


Perhaps not an all-out nuclear war as portrayed in "The Day After," but it's possible that a nuclear weapon (or weapons) could be used by someone, possibly a terrorist faction. As more people and countries have access to the technology, that increases the odds that it could fall into the wrong hands.

reply

"Perhaps not an all-out nuclear war as portrayed in "The Day After," but it's possible that a nuclear weapon (or weapons) could be used by someone, possibly a terrorist faction."

Was the nuclear war in The Day After actually an "all-out" exchange? When the president gave that speech on the radio, he mentioned something about a cease-fire, which would suggest a "limited" nuclear war, maybe like the one depicted in the novel Warday. Not bad enough to destroy civilization, but certainly devastating enough to ensure the United States and Russia have lost their status as superpowers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warday

reply

Perhaps not an all-out nuclear war as portrayed in "The Day After," but it's possible that a nuclear weapon (or weapons) could be used by someone, possibly a terrorist faction.


Have you been watching the news lately? I'm not saying it's going to happen, but Obummer is doing a heck of a job botching this whole Russia situamation.

reply

I hope to Diety that we never find out.

reply