If one nuclear weapon is detonated, how much time until the human race's extinction?

This is a very strange, horrifying, yet important issue. Common consensus holds that were a nuclear weapon to be dropped anywhere in the world, retaliation would be inevitable, and a Third World War would soon follow. I find this a bit of a pessimistic stance really. It presents heads of state as a vengeful, rash, mindless, inhumane rabble, who don't contemplate the consequences of their actions. For any head of state contemplating retaliation would certainly understand that a nuclear war could potentially destroy all life on earth hundreds of times over (I guess nuclear disarmament has been reasonably helpful considering that during the Cold War era, the planet's nuclear arsenal was so great it could've destroyed all life on earth thousands of times over - I feel safe now :p:

). Einstein famously said that "World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones". Indeed, the fact that such an outcome would cross the minds of heads of state makes one question whether any leader would launch a nuclear weapon ever. But, tbh, to say that it will never happen is probably just wishful thinking. There will be a nuclear weapon detonated one day. When this is is a different matter altogether.

Discuss.

Scroll to see replies

12 seconds

Really depends on where it's dropped and who claims responsibility. Terrorists could do it somewhere and being the aggressor isn't an actual country most modern nation's wouldnt retaliate with the same force

Reply 3

montemoney

You made a pretty interesting thread.

but if i have learnt anything from indiana jones, hiding in a fridge is sure to save my sweet cheeks.

Reply 4

Lefty Leo

Nobody who's legitimately come into power and is mentally sane will ever launch a nuclear weapon. Ever.

And even so, most of the world will remain uninvolved :s-smilie:

Reply 5

Texan88

Lefty Leo

Nobody who's legitimately come into power and is mentally sane will ever launch a nuclear weapon. Ever.

And even so, most of the world will remain uninvolved :s-smilie:

Exactly mutually assured destruction is pretty much just if one major superpower nukes another :s-smilie:

Reply 6

Indievertigo

Take NATO - if an aggressor were to launch a nuke on a member country, I think Nato would fall apart then. The rest would want to keep their heads safe rather than continue a nuclear war.

Reply 7

Sammy2704

'It presents heads of state as a vengeful, rash, mindless, inhumane rabble, who don't contemplate the consequences of their actions.'

Why are you so adamant that statesman are not capable of such actions??

Reply 8

dave180

Good point OP. Theres a submarine floating somewhere around the British Isles at all times with a letter on board from the prime minister saying, if Britain is obliterated by a nuclear weapon, whether they have the order to fire nukes back. It seems the threat of retailiation has become an acceptable form of defence.

I'm sure other countries have similar systems in place. If one weapon goes off, it seems the chances would be very high that more would be fired, thus creating an armageddon on a scale unseen for the human race. And we call ourselves civilised...

Reply 9

scorpion95

Nah countries would retaliate they would get the most intelligent people i.e top scientists etc and people from different professions and put them in a bunker/s and all us common people will be screwed as they wouldn't care what happens. They would retaliate with more force then another country will retaliate because they wouldn't agree and then the chain reaction will continue

Reply 10

Joseph90

necessarily benevolent

I find this a bit of a pessimistic stance really. It presents heads of state as a vengeful, rash, mindless, inhumane rabble, who don't contemplate the consequences of their actions ... There will be a nuclear weapon detonated one day. When this is is a different matter altogether.

Discuss.

Very interesting read. Being somewhat of a crazy geek, I enjoy reading threads about the nuclear apocalypse very much.

If a terrorist network such as Al Qaeda or ETA launched a nuclear weapon then many variables would arise. A terrorist network is not a country obviously, and most countries condemn the biggest terrorist networks. However, me being cynical here, wonder if it would be possible that they could switch allegiance on to the side of the terrorists knowing they are armed with nuclear weapons?

If a country were responsible then it would depend which countries are allied with the responsible country and attacked country. The concept of the USA backing Israel is a very blurry one for example. If North Korea attacked the USA, would Ahmedinijad dare to back up North Korea and launch what some people seem to think their secret nuclear weapons arsenal?

An attack could be made without anyone claiming responsibility. This could end in panic and chaos.

Reply 11

thethinker

Enough time for Dr Strangeglove to monologue and Nazi-salute the way to death

Just watch Threads.

dave180

A nuclear deterrent is only a nuclear deterrent when leaders would actually fire the weapons in a situation. Think of some films where someone points a gun at another and the threatened person laughs knowing that they haven't got it in them to fire the gun. The gun might as well have no bullets.

Reply 14

WelshBluebird

Lefty Leo

Nobody who's legitimately come into power and is mentally sane will ever launch a nuclear weapon. Ever.

But a lot of countries have leaders who haven't legitimately got into power, and are not mentally sane, yet are pursuing nuclear technology.

Reply 15

Sithius

It depends entirely on who detonated it. I think a nuclear bomb detonated in London by a group of radical terrorists is completely different to say China deciding 10 Downing Street is aesthetically displeasing and launching an attack.

Reply 16

Lefty Leo

WelshBluebird

But a lot of countries have leaders who haven't legitimately got into power, and are not mentally sane, yet are pursuing nuclear technology.

Well, nuclear deterrence has prevented fullscale war for sixty years now; longer than any era. And even so, no country has totally crazy leaders. It just can't happen, because there are too many people with a vested self interest in atleast their own power to not want to see their country destroyed (in said nations, such as Iran or Pakistan).

Reply 17

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

dave180

that's not entirely true the letter can say not to retaliate as well

Reply 18

Joseph90

WelshBluebird

But a lot of countries have leaders who haven't legitimately got into power, and are not mentally sane, yet are pursuing nuclear technology.

You used the right vocabulary. It is not yet known if the technology is the development of weapons, the production of energy or even research into science.

Scientists in Switzerland have developed small amounts of antimatter. A few grams of this could destroy a city. The media and world leaders have never expressed fear at this development. Though Dan Brown has I suppose.