World War III

Options
Posts: 7,718
edited December 2007 in A Moving Train
So worst case scenario, Pakistan falls apart right now.. they have 70 nuclear weapons that will be in the hands of who knows who.. what are the chances any of those weapons gets launched and who will respond???
Post edited by Unknown User on

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register
«134

Comments

  • Posts: 2,672
    Have any thoughts on who they would try and hit? I really don't think they will ever get launched, it's just not that easy, I was reading once how difficult it is for pakistan to set off a nuke and how hard it would be to access them. It's really a non issue. They are well protected and I just don't see it happening.
  • Posts: 7,718
    icarus wrote:
    Even if Pakistan did somehow manage to fall apart completely, which I highly doubt, it would be the whole world versus Pakistan. I'd hardly call that World War III.
    World War I started with an assasination. It began after the Archduke of the decaying Austro-Hungarian empire was assassinated in Sarajevo by a group of Serbian nationalists. This event began the struggle between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian government... This stuff is a like a domino effect.
  • Posts: 9,404
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    World War I started with an assasination. It began after the Archduke of the decaying Austro-Hungarian empire was assassinated in Sarajevo by a group of Serbian nationalists. This event began the struggle between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian government... This stuff is a like a domino effect.


    and the group of leaders at the treaty of versallies decided to lay the majority of blame with germany and heap them with most of the war debt among other things which left the door open for Hitler to start World War 2....
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • Posts: 583
    MrBrian wrote:
    Have any thoughts on who they would try and hit? I really don't think they will ever get launched, it's just not that easy, I was reading once how difficult it is for pakistan to set off a nuke and how hard it would be to access them. It's really a non issue. They are well protected and I just don't see it happening.

    Why would they try and 'hit' anyone? Pakistan's problems are internal.
  • Posts: 240
    From what I recall, their rocket capabilities are somewhat meager. India is obviously the most worried about this situation, although the folks who I think we're afraid of getting ahold of these weapons don't have it out for India. I would have to believe that the biggest fear would be once these weapons are in the wrong hands that they are exported to other hands...if ya know what I mean.
    "Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
  • Posts: 10,118
    I dont think "Pakistan" would fire nukes if (or when) this country falls into complete chaos. It will be a rogue Islamic extremist group who doesnt affiliate itself as Pakistan per say.
  • Posts: 7,718
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I dont think "Pakistan" would fire nukes if (or when) this country falls into complete chaos. It will be a rogue Islamic extremist group who doesnt affiliate itself as Pakistan per say.
    Thats what I'm saying.. If Pakistan looses order, and Islamic extremist group could seize a nuclear facility, launch a bomb at India, India retaliates, somebody comes to Pakistans aid, and so on..
  • Posts: 10,118
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    Thats what I'm saying.. If Pakistan looses order, and Islamic extremist group could seize a nuclear facility, launch a bomb at India, India retaliates, somebody comes to Pakistans aid, and so on..

    India would be on a long list of possible targets for such a group
  • Posts: 17,388
    Ebizzie wrote:
    From what I recall, their rocket capabilities are somewhat meager. India is obviously the most worried about this situation, although the folks who I think we're afraid of getting ahold of these weapons don't have it out for India. I would have to believe that the biggest fear would be once these weapons are in the wrong hands that they are exported to other hands...if ya know what I mean.
    It's been a while, but if I am remembering correctly....Pakistan's main delivery system was via F-15...but that may have changed. Maybe they bought some North Korean rocket tech.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • Posts: 2,445
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    So worst case scenario, Pakistan falls apart right now.. they have 70 nuclear weapons that will be in the hands of who knows who.. what are the chances any of those weapons gets launched and who will respond???
    I wouldn't worry about it for now. First, it's very unlikely their system will collapse. They have lots of support worldwide. And second, look at who has actually used nukes. That tells you something about what kind of state will take that action...I wouldn't say an "unstable" state is anymore likely to use them than a "stable" state.
  • Posts: 10,118
    Saturnal wrote:
    I wouldn't worry about it for now. First, it's very unlikely their system will collapse. They have lots of support worldwide. And second, look at who has actually used nukes. That tells you something about what kind of state will take that action...I wouldn't say an "unstable" state is anymore likely to use them than a "stable" state.

    I agree its unlikely the state will collapse but how can you think its the same likiness of nukes being used when in the hands of "stable" vs "unstable" I find that odd.
  • Posts: 2,672
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I agree its unlikely the state will collapse but how can you think its the same likiness of nukes being used when in the hands of "stable" vs "unstable" I find that odd.

    Bcoz the only place to of used nukes(not once but twice) was the US, so it's the best example one has in this.

    Also as un stable pakistan kinda is, they don't really even go around attacking other countries, perhaps just over kashmir and India is just as guilty in that.

    Then you have a modern so called stable America that constantly attacks other countries and threatens the use of it's nuke. that scares me more.
  • Posts: 10,118
    MrBrian wrote:
    Bcoz the only place to of used nukes(not once but twice) was the US, so it's the best example one has in this.

    Also as un stable pakistan kinda is, they don't really even go around attacking other countries, perhaps just over kashmir and India is just as guilty in that.

    Then you have a modern so called stable America that constantly attacks other countries and threatens the use of it's nuke. that scares me more.

    when has the US threatened to use nukes? you shouldnt be so scared of the big bad USA. we arent so bad

    and what you are failing to understand is this isnt about Pakistan as a nation or government. its about el queda or Islamic extremists, who as you know, have attacked almost every country in the west.
  • Posts: 7,718
    MrBrian wrote:
    Bcoz the only place to of used nukes(not once but twice) was the US, so it's the best example one has in this.

    Also as un stable pakistan kinda is, they don't really even go around attacking other countries, perhaps just over kashmir and India is just as guilty in that.

    Then you have a modern so called stable America that constantly attacks other countries and threatens the use of it's nuke. that scares me more.


    Again, this isn't about Pakistan using nukes, its about Pakistan falling apart and somebody with extreme purposes getting control of nukes. You're trying to tell me you feel just as safe if a terrorist group seized a nuclear facility an ran it as you would the U.S. having nukes?

    And when has the U.S. ever threatened another country with nukes? We used them in World War II to keep the Nazi's from taking over the planet. They haven't been used since. Thank god nobody crazy has even had the chance to hit the button.
  • Posts: 2,672
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    Again, this isn't about Pakistan using nukes, its about Pakistan falling apart and somebody with extreme purposes getting control of nukes. You're trying to tell me you feel just as safe if a terrorist group seized a nuclear facility an ran it as you would the U.S. having nukes?

    And when has the U.S. ever threatened another country with nukes? We used them in World War II to keep the Nazi's from taking over the planet. They haven't been used since. Thank god nobody crazy has even had the chance to hit the button.

    Bush-"all options are on the table" when speaking about iran. And like I said, the pakistani nukes are well protected, they just can't fall into "bad" hands so easy that anyone should worry.

    and if they in some crazy way fell into terrorist hands, then yes I would be scared...as scared as I feel with america having nukes now.

    and history has shown that america had no need to fire off those nukes. They did it right at the end just to show off it's might in the final stand so future enemies would all fear america.

    so with every war america wages or with every stand america takes it's really firstly, threatening to use it's nukes.
  • Posts: 17,388
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    We used them in World War II to keep the Nazi's from taking over the planet. They haven't been used since. Thank god nobody crazy has even had the chance to hit the button.
    We actually used them to save about a million U.S. lives by not invading the Japanese home islands. Germany had already surrendered by then.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • Posts: 10,118
    MrBrian wrote:
    Bush-"all options are on the table" when speaking about iran. And like I said, the pakistani nukes are well protected, they just can't fall into "bad" hands so easy that anyone should worry.

    and if they in some crazy way fell into terrorist hands, then yes I would be scared...as scared as I feel with america having nukes now.

    and history has shown that america had no need to fire off those nukes. They did it right at the end just to show off it's might in the final stand so future enemies would all fear america.

    so with every war america wages or with every stand america takes it's really firstly, threatening to use it's nukes.


    I have no idea what makes you so confident that Pakistani nukes are safe. um have you seen how fucked up shit is over there?

    and you also should not be worried about US using nukes. we were attacked on 9/11, which some may argue was worse then pearl harbor, and we could have easily made Afghanistan a parking lot.
  • Posts: 240
    MrBrian wrote:
    and history has shown that america had no need to fire off those nukes. They did it right at the end just to show off it's might in the final stand so future enemies would all fear america.

    so with every war america wages or with every stand america takes it's really firstly, threatening to use it's nukes.

    That's highly debatable and I think you'd find a polling of historians would argue against your point of view. I'm no historian so I won't attempt to debate the point with you, but your claim that "history has shown" is a far-reaching claim.

    Also, when Georgie boy mentioned "all options on the table", he wasn't referring to nuclear weapons, as you well know. He was referring to military action.
    "Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
  • Posts: 2,672
    Ebizzie wrote:
    That's highly debatable and I think you'd find a polling of historians would argue against your point of view. I'm no historian so I won't attempt to debate the point with you, but your claim that "history has shown" is a far-reaching claim.

    Also, when Georgie boy mentioned "all options on the table", he wasn't referring to nuclear weapons, as you well know. He was referring to military action.

    The US used nukes to show the world it was crazy enough to use them. That is the point. all options could mean anything, again whos to really say a hint of a nuke was not used? "all options on the table" ??? perhaps a pillow fight?

    and jlew, america bombed the hell out of afghaintsan, cluster bombs and whatever else. so what if they didnt nuke kabul? are you tellinge me that america does not enjoy the fear they can put into countries just becoz they have so many nukes?
  • Posts: 10,118
    MrBrian wrote:
    The US used nukes to show the world it was crazy enough to use them. That is the point. all options could mean anything, again whos to really say a hint of a nuke was not used? "all options on the table" ??? perhaps a pillow fight?
    no, you clearly dont get the point. you made up your own.

    like ebbize said, all options means military action, not we are going to nuke your ass.
    MrBrian wrote:
    and jlew, america bombed the hell out of afghaintsan, cluster bombs and whatever else. so what if they didnt nuke kabul? are you tellinge me that america does not enjoy the fear they can put into countries just becoz they have so many nukes?

    why waste all those bombs when we could have used just one? you are the one who said we are a threat to use them. but we didnt even bother even after one of the worst attacks on our soil in the history of america.

    and here's a news flash for you. we arent the only country with nukes.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories