No politics or shit bomb
I didn't google this question on purpose to have an unbiased opinion. Although, in principle, and so everything is quite obvious and predictable. Therefore, it is very interesting, gentlemen boltologists, how you can comment on this topic.So. Let's assume that there is some abstract planet inhabited by various intelligent and not so intelligent beings. The planet is divided into different states. Some are more developed, successful, rich and powerful, others less so. Among all these large and small states, two of the most developed and strong powers are especially noticeable.
Each of them has its own interests, its own vision of the rules by which all other countries should coexist. And most importantly, your understanding of who is the boss in the house. It is clear that they do not have agreement on these issues.
It cannot be said that they openly conflict with each other, but they also do not feel much love for each other. In a word, competition, whose tranglucator is longer, heh, heh ...
Both are trying to make more partner friends among other countries. Alliances, alliances and coalitions are formed. By and large, there is a certain balance of power that keeps them from open armed conflict.
And the most important point that holds this delicate balance. This is the presence of only these two superpowers of super weapons. Let's assume it's a super-duper-mega-bomb stuffed with the shit of an asteroid krakozyabra. Terribly, deadly, disgustingly smelly and caustic substance, the action of which cannot be neutralized, burns everything it touches. There are also grand catapults that can deliver these shit bombs anywhere on the planet.
The general understanding that the outcome of an armed conflict with the use of these super-bombs will be fatal for all participants in this conflict deters their use.
However, both countries have developed some kind of anti-shit defense system, PDO, to destroy these super-bombs in flight before they reach their targets. Actually for this, military agreements are concluded with allied countries that do not have such shit bombs. Namely, in terms of deploying PDO systems on their territories, the closer to a potential enemy, the better. In general, the idea is clear and familiar to the inhabitants of other similar planets.
Next is the most interesting. Let's assume that the conflict did occur. Shit-bombs from both sides flew at their targets. A certain part of them will be destroyed in the air by PDO systems. The bomb explodes, the shit scatters and, according to the law of universal gravitation, falls down, killing all life with its stench and corroding everything and everything. That is, the country over which this bomb will be destroyed will also cease to exist. Yo mine ... Neither ear, nor snout, nor any side to the conflict, and then such a nuisance.
Actually this is the whole question. What do you think about this guys? All the skiff? Ali who will be lucky?
Persuasive request. In your reasoning, proceed from the fact that this is a hypothetical, absolutely abstract situation, in no way connected with our realities. A purely concrete theory and nothing more. Our gentleman is not very fond of politics and can rub Temko if he learns politics. What would not be desirable.
There will be no nuclear war, God will not allow it. That, in fact, is all) In short. For nefig little people to destroy all living things - they have no right! They will be killed. We are already protected by invisible forces. A meteorite shot down on approach to Chelyabinsk, for example ...
There will be no nuclear war, God will not allow it.
Apparently in the cities: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, everyone was ardent atheists.
There will be no war, global or world with the use of nuclear and the destruction of many, many millions. It meant. But a single boom can happen somewhere ...
Vanya Rygalov
What do you guys think about this? All the skiff? Ali who will be lucky?
Kayuk is not for everyone, but the dead will be the luckiest.
It will not come to this soon, but if it does ... The main thing is that the earth does not fly off the orbit like that. And so, I think, there will be survivors, though not in large quantities.
A.Soldier of Light "There will be no war
, global or world"
it needs a confrontation between military blocs, at least two opposing alliances.
But the confrontation between Russia and NATO could end in a nuclear war.
As a Ukrainian, I would not want the military confrontation taking place on our territory to develop into a large-scale conflict between NATO and Russia with the use of nuclear weapons.
Nationality has nothing to do with it, all adequate people are against nuclear war. And also adequate people do not want a conventional war and demand peace negotiations. If any separately taken inadequate (provocateurs) interfere with this, they need to be caught and punished. Any destabilizing element needs to be corrected or replaced/destroyed. Banal logic.
A.Soldier of Light
Adequate people are usually a minority. I recently watched a social experiment where ordinary people were asked to sign a petition appealing to the President of the United States/Russian Federation on the topic of launching a nuclear strike on Russia/USA. And what is characteristic - 90% of the Americans signed, and somewhere around 60% of the Russians too.
Or, using the example of Ukraine, there are many who are for a military solution to the conflict, and not for peace negotiations.
Reverrius
But the confrontation between Russia and NATO may end in a nuclear war.
Only if one of the commanders-in-chief gets urine in the head.
V-Nine
The fact is that except for the Japanese, no one has yet felt the real horror of the use of nuclear weapons on Earth. No one seriously considers the threat of nuclear conflict, but history knows many wars started over trifles or misunderstandings. Therefore, personally, all this confrontation between NATO and the Russian Federation today is annoying me.
On the other hand, revolutions, ISIS and economic pressure are in vogue now. Therefore, most likely they will bet on sanctions and support for separatism / revolutionism.
Reverrius
No one seriously considers the threat of nuclear conflict, but history knows many wars started over trifles or misunderstandings.
In ancient wars, the parties could not completely destroy each other, and even more so civilization. Now developed countries (in a broad sense) will not wage full-scale wars even without nuclear weapons, since they will be ruinous even for the victorious side.