Report Card for Donald Trump

[David Horn]

(01-26-2017, 10:39 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:34 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:People have done the math with no agenda aforethought. Guess what. WW3 would not be the end of the world.

Correct.  Nuclear winter is grossly overhyped, studies done by RAND, Kahn, and others have shown that casualties, while horrific, would not kill the majority of the population.

But it would be The End of the World as We Know It. 

It depends on the scale. Most calculations assumed a counterforce model.  But counterforce isn't a real strategy against an external enemy--it was directed against and internal opponent--the US Navy.

Let's agree that none of use really knows how many war scenarios exist, and, of that number, how many involve nukes.  Let's also agree that we have too many strategists on the DoD staff to assume the number is 1.  What we can assume is the restraint we would feel as one of 3 major nuclear powers.  If we engage either the Chinese or the Russians, the other will then have the nuclear advantage of a full stockpile and no collateral damage. 

So a nuclear war is unthinkable, unless the one doing the war making is devoid of thought.

There aren't 3 major nuclear powers.  If you set the cutoff at 1000 weaponized warheads, roughly what's needed for some kind of counterforce attacks, there are only 2, the US and Russia.  If you set the cutoff just below China's 280 or so warheads, you have to include France at 300.

Your analysis would be correct if there were exactly 3 major nuclear powers, but there aren't.

Fair enough.  I doubt the French want to be our protectors, but who knows.  The Brits have an arsenal too, and they Ohio class subs.