Does the prospect of nuclear disaster still frighten anyone these days?

[abaris]

Those would be western and Central Europe, some of of near east, china, Japan and Australia.

I only quote this part, since the rose colored view is most obvious with this one. First, the USA is NATO and if NATO became involved it would automatically draw the largest part of Europe in. Which again means that the prospects would be the same as they had been in the years leading up to 1989. Europe would be a nuclear as well as a conventional battlefield with large scale destruction.

Leaving human loss aside for a moment, the aftermath of such a war would be disastrous in any aspect. The global economy would crash for decades and, following that, most surviving nations would face instability on a never before seen scale. Riots, civil wars and ultimately "small" wars would ensue for the last clean ressources.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't think it's through a rose colored lens that it appears to me that NATO member nations no longer perceive a common existential danger to their political and economic system, and now regard NATO more as a instrument that occassionally can be used opportunistically to serve any second tier common intersts. As a result, no NATO ally will be drawn into any potential nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.

[Jackalope]

I grew up during an era when there was a very real possibility of nuclear war between the USA and USSR. Much of my time in the military was at the tail end of the Cold War, and we trained heavily to fight against a Soviet enemy.

Today, I consider a nuclear exchange between USA and USSR to be about as likely as being assaulted by chainsaw-weilding ninjas. Today, at least.

I'd just as soon the damn things didn't exist, but I gear the man with one nuclear weapon, little to lose and an axe to grind more than the man who has much to lose and thousands of them.

I wish there were far fewer of the things, but total disarmament is not something I see ever happening. Yeah, it may be hypocritical of me to live in the USA and not want other countries to have them, but frankly, I wish we didn't either. Won't ever happen though.

[abaris]

As a result, no NATO ally will be drawn into any potential nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.

Poland, Estland, Lituania, Latvia. They're all eager to have it out with Russia and they're all NATO members. Right now there are NATO manoevers in the baltic. What do you think they are about? Who could the enemy possibly be, given the geographic location?

Rest assured, if someone - either in Russia or the USA - is stupid enough to go for it, it won't be a localised matter.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree in the worst case of a all out nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Russia, there would likely be some degree of nuclear winter, resulting into tens of millions of additional causalties from agricultural failure in the 1-2 years after the exchange. But I think on the whole that would be a short term effect, and it's effects will moderate within 1-2 years. The main questions is how much instability the short term femine would generate. I suspect it would generate a lot of instability in less developed parts of Africa and certain parts of Asia and South America. But I think it would not have too much effect in those ares in Euroasia untouched by the nuclear exchange where the bulk of the world's capital and productive potential is comcentrated. Those would be western and Central Europe, some of of near east, china, Japan and Australia. So long as these remaining centers of wealth and productivity don't than go to war against each other, I don't think disturbance in less developed parts of the world, catastrophic humanitarian diseaster as they would be, would likely have too much impact on the overall productive capacity of the world and by extension the world's ability to weather the storm resulting from the removal from the scene of the U.S. and Russia.

In the best case scenario, other developed parts of the world is chastened at least for a couple of decades by the nuclear exchange and more or less coopoerate in building global recovery. Maybe I am an optimist, but if a nuclear war does break out that wipes out its leading power, I think there is 50/50 chance at least that the imindof the other powers would be temporarily focused on avoiding conflict with those who can really hurt them.

Of course in the worst case scenario the remaining nuclear powers, scrambling to fill the vacume left by the destruction of the U.S. and collapse of russian authority over 1/4 of the Euroasia, gets in each other's way and fights additional nuclear battles against each other.

This would be one instance I would dearly love to be wrong. It's good that we are unlikely to learn one way or the other.

[abaris]

This would be one instance I would dearly love to be wrong. It's good that we are unlikely to learn one way or the other.

If push comes to shove I'd rather be a shadow on the pavement than one of the "lucky" survivors.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This would be one instance I would dearly love to be wrong. It's good that we are unlikely to learn one way or the other.

If push comes to shove I'd rather be a shadow on the pavement than one of the "lucky" survivors.

I'm not sure what my preference would be. Where I live, I would miss any direct blast, and have direct access to very remote land without passing through any targeted area.

I guess I'm perhaps addicted to life.

[Anomalocaris]

As a result, no NATO ally will be drawn into any potential nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.

Poland, Estland, Lituania, Latvia. They're all eager to have it out with Russia and they're all NATO members. Right now there are NATO manoevers in the baltic. What do you think they are about? Who could the enemy possibly be, given the geographic location?

Rest assured, if someone - either in Russia or the USA - is stupid enough to go for it, it won't be a localised matter.

The core of NATO in Europe and the parts of Europe that matter to the overall scheme of world economy is germany, and to lesser extent france, UK and Italy. The Pipsqueaks of former eastern block were not admitted into the NATO for the sake of those pipsqueaks, but for the sake of the geopolitical interests mainly of the U.S. Other NATO members would put on a show of NATO solidarity, but certainly would not sacrafice themselves for the geopolitical interests of the U.S., or to sooth the thrill and excitable pipsqueaks ofmthe former eastern block.

If these newly minted NATO pipsqueaks were to act rashly enough to be drawn into a the conflict spawning a nuclear exchange between US and Russia, there is good chance they would be destroyed as part of the nuclear exchange. but I don't believe a single classic NATO state would be moved to immolate itself on behalf of either these NATO "allies", or the US for that matter.

Thus western and Central Europe would weather a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Russia.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't believe a single classic NATO state would be moved to immolate itself on behalf of either these NATO "allies", or the US for that matter.

I don't think the choice would be theirs, Chuck. The prudent Russian strategist would take out Germany simply for being the second-most powerful NATO member, and the first immediately next to the battlefield.