[“Doc” Emmett Brown]“Radiation suit? Of course, because of all the fallout from the atomic wars!”[/Doc]
So how fortunate are we? Did any think tank studies back in the 50s or 60s quantify how likely a future nuclear war was? Was it considered more or less inevitable that the US and USSR would come to blows?
I don’t know if there are stats onhand, but the Stanislav Petrov incident is interesting to read about.
Here’s a treatise that says as longas nuclear weapons exist, the chance of them being used is 100%, and the best we can do is lengthen the odds.
It also says that John F. Kennedy viewed the chances of nuclear war over the Cuban Missile Crisis as being “somewhere between one out of three and even.”
The only think tank-like cites I can find tend to look forward and say things like “if we follow X doctrine, the chance of nuclear war in the next 25 years will range from 5% to 20%, but if we follow Y doctrine, the chances will range from 15% to 40%.”
Considering the other side had Fidel jumping up and down demanding that the USSR push the button and we have Nikita Khrushchev’s diplomatic skills :eek: and common sense to thank for being alive today, JFK might’ve been generous.
Technically speaking, we’ve already had a nuclear war.
It’s impossible to determine how history would have been different if events had been, well, different. So far we’re only aware of one civilization with the capability for nuclear war, and while it’s unlikely that full-scale nuclear war will erupt in the near future (rogue states like North Korea aside) there’s no guarantee that another situation with two antagonistic superpowers will ever arise again.
I do think the “odds” regarding situations like the Cuban Missile Crisis are overstated, however – common sense has a habit of winning out, especially when the potential for global annihilation is a known certainty.
Indeed. Self-preservation is a strong force. One generally doesn’t get to the top of the heap if you don’t have basic love for yourself (ignoring the arts, where success and effort aren’t generally linked).
Do we want to expand the discussion to include scenarios like Israel vs. Iran or India vs. Pakistan?
I suppose I was thinking of a global war between the Us and USSR. A regional nuclear war is like a knife fight: highly interesting to watch from a safe distance, something you don’t want to get drawn into.
Point taken, but I think most people use “a nuclear war” as shorthand when they are really thinking “a nuclear exchange.”
According to this Wired article, Russia has the Doomsday Device that was created as a result of Reagan’s attitude in the 1980s.
The Perimeter System lives.
I dont know what weapons will be used in WW3, but sticks and stones will be used in WW4! -E.E para
Which, ironically enough (from what I understand of this article), was implemented to lessen the chances of nuclear war, by assuring hardliners that they wouldn’t be caught with their pants down.