Its Cold War 2. As for WW3 you have not a clue what you are talking about. You remind me of the idiots back in the 1930's that claimed that one hour after the next war was declared all major cities would be flattened, their inhabitants reduces to cavemen, by waves of thousands of bombers.
Is there any topic you won't spoof on, and throw around random insults about "idiots"?
Let's read the rest of this...
Did not happen.
OK, so what did happen?
Eventually years later the cities were slowly destroyed and millions were killed in air raids but the war that actually unfolded bore little relationship to that predicted by the armageddonist before hand.
Well to begin, I'm not even sure who the "idiots" you are referring to are, since you don't bother to identify the strawmen you're so happily squaring off against. You do seem to identify them as individuals who in the 1930s attempted to identify what would happen in a future war, which in fact took place in the 1940s.
Now, although I know you successfully predicted the 2004 P&L accounts for Amazon in 1989, to such a degree of accuracy they were in 2005 submitted to the SEC rather than the accounts slowly being prepared by the idiots in Amazon's accounts department, mostly the track record of prediction is rather poor as it's a difficult thing to do.
But I don't see this prediction being so bad:
- Cities were destroyed
- People were in some cases reduced to pretty "caveman-like" foraging and subsistence when their urban environments were destroyed or they were displaced
- This happened in the next major war
What was wrong was the pace and totality of the destruction. However, by the end of the war we had demonstration of a technical leap that would make one-sortie destruction of an entire city possible, and also the advanced development of technologies (jet engines and rocketry) that would accelerate our ability to deliver destructive payloads to other lands.
It will be no different next time around.
Even if your first point was sensible, this would still be a logical non-sequitur. And you've also left out who it is you're actually attacking for this "mistake". The previous poster? Some academic types? Journalists? Colonel Sanders?
It makes the most interesting reading, in a Möbius strip way, to imagine you're attacking yourself.
We very nearly had a full blown hot war. It was very very close run thing.
You're very close to playing "the pronoun game
It would have been nothing like Threads or The Day After or Weltkrieg. It would have been a much much messier version of the Ukraine, with a tactical nuke detonation or two.
How big of a theatre are you talking about? If it's really "like Ukraine" then I wouldn't call it a world war. If it involves huge theatres of operations: Europe, Americas, Asia, etc., then I agree tactical nukes would have found application, but unless it bedded into stale-mate very quickly I don't think a strategic escalation by either side would have been unlikely (probably most likely by the side feeling they were being pushed back on their heels and trying to arrest the slide).
If by accident it did go strategic exchange then given the exceptionally high failure rate of both delivery vehicles and payloads the probability of a partial or full detonation over Ireland is small but non trivial. Still small casualties.
What are you basing this on? Official doctrine did incorporate ideas of steady escalation, but there were respectable critics of that thinking who doubted the ability of both sides to sustain that approach and maintain decision making and chain of command. There would be serious risk of a major escalation in that setting.
It would be good to give a reference for your failure rate claim. However, the overkill was substantial at the peak of the cold war, so there would be significant nuclear explosions and damage.
Also, Ireland's risk wouldn't be only from a stray bomb/missile. Ireland was on targeting lists, because of housing assets that could be used to the benefit of belligerents (in particular air-strips, but fuel reserves, ports and food would all have been relevant). Shannon and Bantry mentioned in this discussion as Soviet targets:http://www.politicalworld.org/archive/i ... 10693.html
(you're not by any chance the jmcc in that thread?)
The real fun would start as Irelands complete and total unpreparedness regarding both civil defense and in fact any defense was laid bare. You would be more likely to slowly starve to death in Ireland after a full exchange than die of radiation or blast injuries.
Sort of like in Threads you mean?
Ireland is by far the most unprepared country in Europe for any major crisis.
wow, such unqualified claim!
what units do you measure that in?
As for the UN. It only gets involved in small wars that have no strategic value. Mere ineffectual policemen. Syria is a full on proxy war by all the major players so UN has zero role. A bit like talking about sending traffic wardens to control an armed riot / turf war between competing crime gangs.
I suspect you've missed a point in the original comment here