Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

They wanted my opinion.

Because of my military background and being a disabled combat wounded veteran, plus having worked for the Army as a civilian in electronic warfare, I was asked by several people to state my opinion on what THEY referred to as a "limited nuclear event?" I bluntly stated that in any exchanges of Tactical Thermonuclear Weapons that those who managed to survive the initial aftermath will envy the dead. Period.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
I had hoped to live out my life with worries of nuclear war all in the past.
plungesponge · 41-45, M
My take on what is happening is that the US has calculated that in the greater geopolitical environment, China stands to overtake the US on a number of fronts, and the balance of world power in general is shifting back to China and India the way it always has in history.

Couple that with hypersonic technology, AI, drone and cyber warfare, alternatives to the petrodollar and petrol itself, a US economy built on unsustainable debt and a botched pandemic response which leave the US far less able to deal with the next inevitable pandemic, and the US has everything to lose and nothing to gain from the status quo.

So we see the US picking a fight with Russia and destabilizing Europe overall, since a war fought in Europe benefits the US and potentially opens up an alliance against China. We see attacks on non-US energy infrastructure, so the US can sell liquified gas to Europe even if it means deindustrializing Germany. We see loose talk of nuclear exchange, since that's a military card the US still possesses above other nations, even if playing it risks global destruction. And it makes even more sense when the military edge of US conventional forces is weakening, with an inability to recruit troops, a public unwilling to see boots on the ground anywhere, and a bloated military hardware agenda that enriches arms manufacturers but churns out expensive drone targets just waiting to be blown up.
revenant · F
I would not trust the term " limited nuclear event" at all.
luv2fly352 · 70-79, M
@revenant indeed
luv2fly352 · 70-79, M
My unit was heavily exposed to agent orange.
revenant · F
@luv2fly352 dang I am sorry.
AndysAttic · 56-60, M
Chernobyl was a 'limited nuclear event'. I think that puts things in perspective.
originnone · 61-69, M
depends on a lot of factors, deposition, wind direction, weather stability, and many individual characteristics. Generally speaking, if you're outside a couple hundred miles, the most likely effects will be longer term increases in cancer rates - not so much immediate health impact.
firefall · 61-69, M
@originnone Ha. I was more focussed on the idea that a 'limited nuclear event' would remain limited, which seems implausible to me
originnone · 61-69, M
@firefall Oh, I get it. Notwithstanding the obviously cataclysmic consequences, it would be interesting to see how it changed world politics....like a Dr. Strangelove thing....
badminton · 61-69, MVIP
If the nukes go off nothing matters then.

Ban the Bomb.
Confined · 56-60, M
No such thing as limited.
JRod said we had nuclet war late in the 20th century. (Time traveler) not many survivors.
He said China and Russia formed an alliance, and did a simultaneous launch against the USA.
Forced all countries to respond. (Guess who formed al alliance only a few months ago)
firefall · 61-69, M
Y'aint wrong
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
Too True. I have no idea why the globalists in DC seem to be trying to justify such a war. That is insanity. Anyone proposing it should be removed from power and locked up or shot.
Einstein said something to the effect that he didn't know how WWIII would be fought, but that he knew WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
For those near the bullseye, I seriously doubt whether they will know whether they have been bombed by a tactical Vs a strategic thermonuclear weapon.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
This message was deleted by its author.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@SusanInFlorida Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors of even the lowest ranks should be the first to be consulted on questions or war, regardless or the scope of the war.

Always remember the narrative of the landing on Omaha Beach.

It goes something like this: The day had started badly. Nothing had gone as planned. American forces were pinned down on the beach and being decimated ,... until individual soldiers took matters into their own hands and turned the tide.

Also, regardless of rank, members of the armed services gain real and practical insights into the inefficiencies, blunders and failures of the military organizations and the disconnects between the soldiers in the field and the Commander in Chief and department of Defense that resides in Washington DC.

There was an old WW2 joke about a low ranked soldier complaining to his sergeant about how could ever win this war with such incompetent leadership in Washington. The sergeant's response to the low ranked soldier was that "we'll win, because the Germans have even more incompetent leadership in Berlin."
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@SusanInFlorida

Re .... "the living will envy the dead" was first laid out as a question put out by Herman Khan in one of his books, "On Thermonuclear War" I believe. I believe his own answer was "no" if we took Russia's threats seriously and reflected on how Communist Russia and China had taken possession of much of Asia and Eastern Europe . The nuclear superiority of the West was more a deterrent to contain the massive Russian and Chinese armies than an arms race.
This message was deleted by its author.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@swirlie Yeah and if you need a prime example look at Biden.
This message was deleted by its author.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@swirlie Yes it is so sad how far the US has fallen. Biden was not elected much the same as Trudeau was not elected in Canada. Both are puppets and both are wearing thin.

 
Post Comment