• @RupeThereItIs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1610 months ago

    Uhm, doofus, nobody’s gonna fight in ww3.

    Bombs get launched and we ALL die, that’s how ww3 is faught.

    It’s frightening how little the younger generations understand about nuclear war.

    • @underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      60
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      There have been plenty of wars fought in the age of nuclear weapons that, strangely enough, have not resulted in the use of nuclear weapons. There’s a few of them going on right now, in fact!

        • @underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          110 months ago

          Which nuclear powers do you foresee entering into direct conflict in a theoretical WW3 scenario based on current conditions?

          • @Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            In context of being a hypothetical world war, I do believe the current major powers, some of which have nukes, need to be involved. By definition, the answer to your question would have to be someone on this list.

            • @underisk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              110 months ago

              I don’t see how the current geopolitical climate results in any of those coming into direct conflict rather than just continuing to wage thinly veiled proxy wars. The only WW3 scenario I can imagine right now looks more like an intensification of the current situation.

              • @Urist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                410 months ago

                I do not see any world wars happening anytime soon either, given a somewhat rational (read non-suicidal) leadership of key nations. The original comment you responded to said that none would survive a nuclear total war, to which you replied that there have been wars fought in the nuclear age. This is true, even to the point of proxy wars between nuclear powers. However, they are not world wars, for which I think the original comment’s argument holds true. In effect the idea is that a world war would almost by definition have some nuclear power on either side.

                • @underisk@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -310 months ago

                  If a world war can only exist between nuclear powers then does the first one (and most of the second) not count?

                  • @Urist@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    310 months ago

                    No, but a conflict pretty much has to include major powers to escalate to a world war and the major powers coincide with the nuclear powers either directly or peripherally. I get the sense that you are arguing in bad faith here.

      • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        110 months ago

        Uhm, doofus, nobody’s gonna fight in ww3.

        There have been plenty of wars fought in the age of nuclear weapons that, strangely enough, have not resulted in the use of nuclear weapons.

        Which of those were WWIII?

    • @RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1810 months ago

      Me looking at the handful of declassified missile defense sites and wondering what shit we have that isn’t known.

      Yeah… it’ll just be that simple Mr. Armchair General.

      • @tegs_terry@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        210 months ago

        NATO gets assailed and everybody responds, which is the whole point. That’s an unwanted fission excess immediately.