Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, definitely.

84 (53.8%)

Probably.

32 (20.5%)

Maybe, maybe not.

15 (9.6%)

Probably not.

14 (9%)

No, definitely not.

6 (3.8%)

Don't know.

5 (3.2%)

Total Members Voted: 155

[MarcAFK]

That's an awesome title, in 100 minutes you could not only launch enough salvos to destroy the entire earth, but you could easily fit it all into a realtime motion picture..
Also, I don't believe people are incapable of launching a nuclear war for 2 reasons.
1) It's easily possible for someone with psychopathic tendencies to be placed in charge of nuclear weapons.  In theory anyone willing to be placed into a career where they directly choose to kill other human beings has a tendency to ignore the psychological, moral, and emotional aspects of that action and given time and the right enviromental factors could be pushed into making that decision on a far greater scale.
2) It's likely that those in charge of launching a nuclear war would be holed up in secret protective bunkers and thus would be saved from the consideration of their own self preservation in making the decision to launch the Missiles.
and lastly if the enemy has already blasted the shit out of your own country or worse your family revenge/anger is easily possible.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's an awesome title, in 100 minutes you could not only launch enough salvos to destroy the entire earth, but you could easily fit it all into a realtime motion picture..

Once again:

Obviously we can, the question is intended to be viewed in a "Do we have it in us to kill humanity?" manner. Sort of like "Are you a killer?"*7,000,000,000.

[Montague]

The Hundred Minutes' War.

That's seriously a good name for a nuclear war. It actually even makes me physically sick to the stomach to read it, its that good.

[thobal]

Meh on "100 Minutes War."

Anyone who thinks that a nuclear war might only last 100 minutes obviously hasn't thought it through.

Additionally, there simply aren't enough active nuclear weapons to kill even a majority of the world's population, much less end civilization. That's not to say that a nuclear war wouldn't be terrifying to live through. But the magnitude of exaggeration and disinformation on the subject is staggering, to say the least.

[ETV]

Meh on "100 Minutes War."

Anyone who thinks that a nuclear war might only last 100 minutes obviously hasn't thought it through.

Additionally, there simply aren't enough active nuclear weapons to kill even a majority of the world's population, much less end civilization. That's not to say that a nuclear war wouldn't be terrifying to live through. But the magnitude of exaggeration and disinformation on the subject is staggering, to say the least.

Cite your sources (both sides).

[Gamerlord]

I would launch the end of the world. Just for the applause as I walk through the evil villain gallery of hell, with Hitler, Osama Bin Laden and the rest clapping as I climb to the throne of hell and Satan knights me.   

[Il Palazzo]

I would launch the end of the world. Just for the applause as I walk through the evil villain gallery of hell, with Hitler, Osama Bin Laden and the rest clapping as I climb to the throne of hell and Satan knights me.   

...with a red-hot iron dildo menacing with spikes of burnt bacon for putting his infernal enterprise out of business.

[Max White]

Yes.
There will always be somebody who is more than willing to be 'that guy'. Somebody out there, in politics right now, would kill all man kind in retaliation to a single attack. They might not be in a high position or power, or well known, but god help us if they ever are given the chance. We are fully capable of killing everything through nuclear means. Will we is a new debate.

[Jackrabbit]

Meh on "100 Minutes War."

Anyone who thinks that a nuclear war might only last 100 minutes obviously hasn't thought it through.

Additionally, there simply aren't enough active nuclear weapons to kill even a majority of the world's population, much less end civilization. That's not to say that a nuclear war wouldn't be terrifying to live through. But the magnitude of exaggeration and disinformation on the subject is staggering, to say the least.

Cite your sources (both sides).

Listen to this man. I for one will be turning to Threads for an accurate depiction of nuclear war with nuclear weapons that are presumably outdated and less powerful than what countries possess today.

Also, the point isn't that it'll last 100 minutes, as I think the estimate is 20 minutes, but rather it's a clever and catchy reference to the Hundred Years War, as we're postulating a nuclear exchange between Britain and France. Leave artistic license alone, what'd it ever do to you?

[Another]

If the question was "will it happen" than I would answer that it is very unlikely. Even a single nuke will just make the position of any state that launched it only worse, and no other [sane] state will push anyone with nuclear weapons to the limits. Most nuclear launch systems have measures requiring at least 2 unrelated people to agree on launch to prevent a single psycho/infiltrator/temporary delusional person from initiating a nuclear war.

However history shows that atrocities are sometimes committed and total wars arise from local conflicts. It is overly optimistic to understate blindness and aggressiveness that can take over in the ruling circles. Being bombed haven't stopped [for better in some cases and for worse in others] some governments from continuing with the actions that had led to being bombed in the first place. Lots of people in 1923-38 were totally sure that no major European war would ever happen again.

As for retaliatory strike - revenge is a powerful motive for many people to do practically anything. Rationality is not the most valued and leading to promotions and important assignments quality in the military. It is fortunate that in the cases of Petrov and Kennedy there was enough of it but not all people would do the same thing in their places.

[Lord Shonus]

Here's the thing. It will never be as simple as "Destroy Civilizaton? YES/NO." Nukes are very powerful, very intimidating, and very "clean" (in this sense, I mean that they are very predictable.) It's incredibly easy for someone in a crisis to think "we can drop one bomb here and stop the war before it starts, saving millions of lives!" or for a nation like Pakistan fighting on the wrong side of a 7:1 population ratio to decide that they can save their country by dropping one or two on an invading army. Then things escalate.

[Nikov]

Civilization can both start and survive a global nuclear war. Fun fact; population centers are the lowest priority targets for strategic weapons.

[DJ]

Cities should've been lowest priority for Luftwaffe, but we know how Battle of Britain went.

[thobal]

Meh on "100 Minutes War."

Anyone who thinks that a nuclear war might only last 100 minutes obviously hasn't thought it through.

Additionally, there simply aren't enough active nuclear weapons to kill even a majority of the world's population, much less end civilization. That's not to say that a nuclear war wouldn't be terrifying to live through. But the magnitude of exaggeration and disinformation on the subject is staggering, to say the least.

Cite your sources (both sides).

You expect me to prove a negative? Just think critically and you'll know that I'm right. Just because you live near a nuclear target doesn't mean that the rest of the world does. Who is going to nuke Africa and South America?

And don't start on this "the survivors will lack access to medical care and adequate nutrition" when most of the world's population has neither sans nuclear conflict.

Some quick math finds that if the average yield of 26,000 weapons was about 2 MT (both of these numbers are far higher than actual figures. A more reasonable estimate would be 15,000 weapons yielding 500kt each and even that is pushing it) would take out (as in set fire to) something just over 10% of the earth's land area. That's assuming they were used perfectly.
Global Numbers
United States Specific

....presumably outdated and less powerful than what countries possess today.

You presume too much! Have the laws of physics changed in the last thirty years? Or did you miss that weapon yields have been trending down for the last half century?

Also, the point isn't that it'll last 100 minutes, as I think the estimate is 20 minutes, but rather it's a clever and catchy reference to the Hundred Years War, as we're postulating a nuclear exchange between Britain and France. Leave artistic license alone, what'd it ever do to you?

I dont know where you're getting that 20 minute number, except maybe from an estimate of warning times in the continental United States.

I got the 100 year war thing, but like all of the titles I thought up, it just dosnt feel right to me. Hence the "meh".

Cities should've been lowest priority for Luftwaffe, but we know how Battle of Britain went.

Only about half the world's population lives in Urban areas, and only a third live in countries with access to advanced, miniaturized nuclear weapons(the kind that don't need specialized aircraft/cargo planes to deliver).

[Eagleon]

We could definitely start using nuclear weapons given the right situation, and things could become very unpleasant. What worries me is that as time goes on, nuclear weapons will become children's toys compared to biological or other options that don't require giant centrifuges and a staff of engineers from varying disciplines to build. When the equipment and knowledge to make a racially targetted smallpox with the dormancy characteristics of HPV or herpes fits into a package that some random middle-class grad student has access to, there's no oversight. It pretty much becomes a free-for-all. That's discounting non-biological grey goo stuff, which, with the way things are looking, is honestly quite optimistic.