Will there be a nuclear strike in your lifetime?

[Rev. Rye]

I've looked into it quite a bit; and for those of us who aren't too willing to pore over the horrifying details, a 1984 film called Threads is likely the most accurate portrait of what would likely happen in the event of a nuclear exchange. It's not pretty.

You remember The Day After, that movie about what a nuclear attack would be like, and scared everyone, including Ronald Reagan, shitless at the prospect, and helped lead to a missile pact between the US and the Soviets? And how that actually ended with a title card saying it was actually a toned down version of the reality? Threads is what a version of that film would look like if it didn't need it. The only real inaccuracy is the claim that the ozone layer would be permanently depleted (and that question isn't really settled in the least). Make no mistake, it's not a pretty sight.

Perhaps then, we could still count on cooler heads prevailing, but with the recent upheavals in the world today, I don't think we can. With the title question, I can only say "I hope not!"

[brewer]

---

OP: this is so far off my radar of every day life concerns that I don't really care.

50% of people here think there will be a nuclear strike in their lifetime. Seems like something you should think about at least a little.

Meh, I don't have that long to live. Priorities my boy, priorities.

[Jackalope]

@CapnAwesome

Gee, thanks for the lesson, dude. I had no idea. . I suggest you consider the number of counties that might fall under the "wishful thinking" I referred to.

[ignoramus]

Who thinks that the first nuke will be used by terrorists?
In other words, due to an incompatibility between Islam and Western civilisation?

Oh well, God giveth life, God can taketh away....

[Anomalocaris]

---

50% of people here think there will be a nuclear strike in their lifetime. Seems like something you should think about at least a little.

Meh, I don't have that long to live. Priorities my boy, priorities.

I think there is much higher chance you will see a nuclear strike within your lifetime than you will die from a car accident, a plane crash, or a natural disaster.

---

Any position I could take on this would seem.to be based on either wishful thinking or bias against the current administration.

I certainly hope that insanity doesn't rule the day.

The US isn't the only one to have nuclear weapons. North Korea has them, Pakistan has them, the former Soviet Union doesn't even have them all accounted for. Trump or not, I'd say chances are better that a country not the US uses them first.

---

OP: this is so far off my radar of every day life concerns that I don't really care.

50% of people here think there will be a nuclear strike in their lifetime. Seems like something you should think about at least a little.

The us may not be the only country to have nuclear weapons, but the US is the only country that is likely to think it has such geopolitical and technological advantage that if it were to use nuclear weapons, it would be spare of the consequences that all other nuclear powers can count on to suffer if they were to use it.

It is no secret that the US had been prepared to use nuclear weapons on a number of occasions during the last 70 years explicitly before the opponent has used nuclear weapons, or when the opponent didn't even have nuclear weapons, and at a time when the US homeland is in no way threatened at all.

The first clear example was in Korea.  The US was prepared to nuke the Chinese should china drive UN forces out of Korea when china didn't have nuclear weapon nor had in any way threatened any territory or possession of the US.  The second obvious one was during operation Desert Storm, when the US explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iraq if iraq used Chemical weapons against coalition forces, even though Iraq had no nuclear weapons and posed no threat to the US, US possessions, or any real US allies.

I think no other nuclear power is likely to use nuclear weapons unless its home territory is directly threatened, or in the case of North Korea if the regime's survival is in grave danger, or if nuclear weapons have first been used against it.

This comes back to my original assessment that the US is the only power in the world that is likely to use nuclear weapons electively as a tactical asset, even when its home territory, its possessions, or its truly key allies are not under threat,  as oppose to the ultimate weapon of very last resort either because of existential threat to homeland, or as a response to nuclear weapon having been used first against its forces.

This is because the US is unique in having a doctrine to win a nuclear war during the Cold War, and has the nuclear and conventional propounderance to insulate itself from the consequences in most nuclear release scenarios against a lesser power in the post Cold War scenario.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm probably going to live to a very old age but that's just an intuition. Assuming my intuition is correct I believe there is over a 50% chance of some country dropping some nuke on some other country in my lifetime. But that's just another intuition.

[CapnAwesome]

Meh, I don't have that long to live. Priorities my boy, priorities.

I think there is much higher chance you will see a nuclear strike within your lifetime than you will die from a car accident, a plane crash, or a natural disaster.

---

The US isn't the only one to have nuclear weapons. North Korea has them, Pakistan has them, the former Soviet Union doesn't even have them all accounted for. Trump or not, I'd say chances are better that a country not the US uses them first.

---

50% of people here think there will be a nuclear strike in their lifetime. Seems like something you should think about at least a little.

The us may not be the only country to have nuclear weapons, but the US is the only country that is likely to think it has such geopolitical and technological advantage that if it were to use nuclear weapons, it would be spare of the consequences that all other nuclear powers can count on to suffer if they were to use it.

It is no secret that the US had been prepared to use nuclear weapons on a number of occasions during the last 70 years explicitly before the opponent has used nuclear weapons, or when the opponent didn't even have nuclear weapons, and at a time when the US homeland is in no way threatened at all.

The first clear example was in Korea.  The US was prepared to nuke the Chinese should china drive UN forces out of Korea when china didn't have nuclear weapon nor had in any way threatened any territory or possession of the US.  The second obvious one was during operation Desert Storm, when the US explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iraq if iraq used Chemical weapons against coalition forces, even though Iraq had no nuclear weapons and posed no threat to the US, US possessions, or any real US allies.

I think no other nuclear power is likely to use nuclear weapons unless its home territory is directly threatened, or in the case of North Korea if the regime's survival is in grave danger, or if nuclear weapons have first been used against it.

This comes back to my original assessment that the US is the only power in the world that is likely to use nuclear weapons electively as a tactical asset, even when its home territory, its possessions, or its truly key allies are not under threat,  as oppose to the ultimate weapon of very last resort either because of existential threat to homeland, or as a response to nuclear weapon having been used first against its forces.

This is because the US is unique in having a doctrine to win a nuclear war during the Cold War, and has the nuclear and conventional propounderance to insulate itself from the consequences in most nuclear release scenarios against a lesser power in the post Cold War scenario.

You make a lot of good points. However the Russians almost launched a nuke at the US by mistake in the 1980s, I just listened to it, and two times we almost nuked the Russians first earlier than that. http://www.missedinhistory.com/podcasts/...-calls.htm so I would say it's not unlikely they could strike something first too. Also the US would definitely suffer political and economic consequences if they nuked anybody. Every country on the planet would boycott the US if they dropped a nuke. So I think if a nuke goes off, it's at most only 50% likely to be the US. Consider who even has control of the nukes in Pakistan? How long is that regime going to last? I think most of my life I haven't even really thought about nuclear war as a possibility, growing up post cold war, until recently.

---

Who thinks that the first nuke will be used by terrorists?
In other words, due to an incompatibility between Islam and Western civilisation?

Oh well, God giveth life, God can taketh away....

Yeah, what is the United State's and Europe's response if say, Madrid is nuked by terrorists. Who gets nuked in return?

[Aroura]

I wonder if some people would think of being boycotted as a bad thing, or consider it a "consequence". It could be spun as US first, a beneficial side effect.

[vorlon13]

Is the consensus regarding Pakistan and India that the 'MAD' theory is applicable/accepted and actually working there?

(ignoring for the moment the threat of terrorists attempting/succeeding in stealing one or more nukes from Pakistan, or 'in house' diversion of materials to a 'rogue' element of their military)

[brewer]

Lets bring back air raid drills with duck and cover. That was such a fun time in grade school.