What on earth makes you think that would be the case?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
World War Three
- Thread starter Masboroughlad
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,090
'The revolution will be televised'.
World War Three, on the other hand, will never be reported, on this forum or anywhere else, for pretty obvious reasons.
World War Three, on the other hand, will never be reported, on this forum or anywhere else, for pretty obvious reasons.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
Scarily this has happened several times through the decades, as outlined below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
Last edited:
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 4,923
Oh how naive can you be
A lot has changed since WWII. Reportedly it was someone in North Korea who set off the ransomware attack which affected things from the NHS in the UK to train running in Germany. If someone can do that without the need for an army then maybe a WWIII could be ongoing without all the bombs and rifles that armies used in WWII.
Are you some sort of expert in this matter?
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
The willy-waving itself (from Drumpf and "Thatcher the Grey" in particular) is far more disrespectful than you or anyone else calling it out.
You don't need to be a expert to know that the controls on nuclear weapons are nowhere near perfect.
Nuclear weapons have been around for a long time now and one has not gone off accidently yet.
Through luck more than anything. There have been a scary number of near-misses. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.shtml
I think it comes down to more than luck.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
One of the scenarios in the list najaB linked to states:
So why do you think it “comes down to more than luck”?!
If all these incidents were such close shaves then the odds are that surely one of the devices would have detonated?
You apparently don't understand how 'odds' work.
Plus none of this explains why greyman42 is so certain things have gotten better!
I am no expert on it.
I just think that we live in a society where most people don't fear that a nuclear weapon is about to accidently detonate.
In that particular example the comment was about the explosives in the missile. The nuclear component was not installed so there was no possibility of a nuclear accident
NSEFAN
Established Member
A lack of incident doesn't mean something is safe.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Then why are you so convinced by your own point of view?
It seems people like to dramatise these things.
It was only an opinion. I thought that was what this forum was for?
We do not live in a society where people hold that fear. But I suspect an awful lot of that is because most people do not know very much at all about nuclear weapons, their development, use and control. People do not know that there is anything to worry about because we have been lucky again and again and again.
Plus this only covers accidental detonations. There have been more than a few times where a launch could have been anything but accidental:
- 1961 - A single relay station in Colorado cuts off the US Air Force Strategic Air Command from their early warning radars and NORAD. This nearly causes the launch of bombers against the Soviet Union until an already airborne aircraft reports no sign of nuclear detonations.
- 1962 - I assume the Cuban Missile Crisis needs no introduction. But a slightly lesser known part was played by one Soviet Submariner who refused to authorise the use of nuclear torpedoes against US Navy ships despite his captains desire to do so.
- 1979 - A simulation tape is loaded into an active computer at NORAD which triggers a full scale alert with bombers and missiles prepared for launch and a request that the President authorise a counter attack.
- 1983 - Russian early warning satellites detect incoming missiles which, by doctrine, should require an immediate retaliatory strike. One officer put it down to a false alarm and did not pass it up the chain of command. It later transpired that sunlight reflecting from clouds triggered the alert.
- 1995 - A Norwegian rocket test is detected by Russian early warning radar and is interpreted as a first strike against Moscow. The Russian President was notified and the nuclear briefcase was temporarily activated in preparation for ordering a retaliatory strike.
I have read very little that leaves me with any hope that there are "more safeguards in place now". I'd certainly be happy to read about such things assuming you have some links?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
And it still takes all day to fly to the US, and all day AND all night to fly to Australia? 'bout time the airline industry caught up if you ask me.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
But how on Earth will you get your overdue tax rebate if HMRC offices had all been destroyed?
Traveling at Mach 12 is all fine and good, but *arriving* at hypersonic velocities puts a damper on the rest of your day!
That reminds me of the line out of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - The secret of flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss...The trouble is all the sabre-rattling by politicians; everyone on both sides of the Russian/British spat was a politician and quite frankly both sides could have been telling lies. The only restraining factor for nuclear war is that politicians on both sides are potentially in personal jeopardy. Besides, why waste nukes on cities when there are enemy armies on the march?
You clearly have no idea how nuclear war (and deterrence) 'works'.
- Status