Anonymous asked in Entertainment & MusicPolls & Surveys · 1 year ago

Could world war 3 happen WITHOUT nuclear weapons?

Every time the theoretical topic of a third global war comes up, it is always assumed to be a nuclear holocaust. But why? it just seems entirely illogical, end all life on earth? really?.

Looking at this from a logical standpoint, wouldn't it be much simpler for warring superpowers to utilize military resources to fight and control certain areas instead of blowing up the entire earth and killing everybody forever? it almost seems lazy. Like, me and this guy at the pub disagree with eachother, so instead of fist fighting, we will both simultaneously press buttons to blow the building up killing everybody inside including ourselves.

Seems like a total copout, an insane one at that.

3 Answers

  • 1 year ago

    Think about it. The USA and the Allies had WW TWO in the bag. It was only a matter of time before Japan surrendered. But hay, the USA spent billions making the bombs, lets see if they work. If the USA was willing to use nukes after it had the war all tied up, don't you think that if a nation is about to go under it would not use them as a last resort? You think if Israel ever came close to losing a war with conventional weapons it would not use nukes? You think it would just let the enemies win and come in and take the nukes? Same logic for any nation with nukes. I do not see any nation with nukes going under without using at least some of them.

  • The nuclear weapons are never used at the beginning. They're only used at the end, when a nuclear-capable nation is at the point of collapse and they have nothing left to lose.

    Let's take your analogy of a bar fight and run with it. Two guys argue. The argument heats up. Insults are thrown, and then eventually fists. If one guy is in danger of losing and he has an opportunity to grab a nearby object (say, a bar stool) and strike the other guy with it, why would he hesitate? Losing is not a choice as long as fighting dirty is an option. If the other guy is able to withstand the introduction of a blunt weapon, he may pull a knife, which may inspire the pulling of a gun, and so on... The goal is to avoid losing, and if you can't avoid that, then if you can destroy your destroyer, then why not? What is there to lose?

  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    In general, the only people who think otherwise are complete idiots.

    Even IF I drop a nuclear bomb on you, why would you retaliate with a nuclear attack yourself knowing I could drop 100 more? Any nuclear conflict is likely to quickly end for fear of it escalating out of control and conventional forces will move in to finish the job.

    Even more so, if conventional forces were to be marching on your doorstep how likely are you to actually launch a nuclear attack? When do you press the button?

    Take a look at The Grand Design (Yes, Prime Minister), a comedy skit makes a hell of a lot more sense than the illogical arguments of M.A.D.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.