Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    12 seconds
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    10
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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
    Exactly mutually assured destruction is pretty much just if one major superpower nukes another
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    '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??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Enough time for Dr Strangeglove to monologue and Nazi-salute the way to death
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just watch Threads.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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...
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by 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).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    that's not entirely true the letter can say not to retaliate as well
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No matter what country did I think they'd be fried within 24hours.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.