Even if the Cold War is over and nuclear warheads haven't been used in years, do you think in the future, far or near, a nuclear warhead will be launched as an offensive attack against another country? Maybe, in years far away, tension and violence have rose amoung countries of the world that massive nuclear bombs have to be used to kill off the enemy's will to move on?

Well, I was just wondering about these massive weapons and what purpose they might bring in the future. Maybe mankind will blow itself off with such destructive blows. Or maybe mankind will establish peace of centuries to come and learn to get rid of these weapons completely. Thoughts? North Korea or any countries?

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)

---------@%

The Massassi JO/JA Single Player contest info (I don't know why I have this still in my sig)

Personally, I don't think it will happen. People have pretty muched realized the nuclear weapons are bad for everyone. So unless a terrorist group or a crappy country gets one, I doubt there'll be nukes flying around. Right now I think the major powers are stalemated. They can't really act against another country without major repurcussions.

Note - I am uninformed and don't really know anything.

------------------
"I'd rather be hated for who I am rather than loved for who I pretend to be." -Janis Joplin

If there was to be a nuclear war it would most likely be between India and Pakistan.

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

agreed

------------------
Clarinetists, unite!

-writer of Bloodwing: Fallen Soldier
(no site up yet...)

Without thnking about war/nukes, I would say aour world in the future will probably at one stage end up looking like Blade Runner. Overpopulation, cities run by corporations, environment down the toilet.

Or maybe not.

So we should nuke it??

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)

---------@%

The Massassi JO/JA Single Player contest info (I don't know why I have this still in my sig)

The environment will be fine if we don't let those crazy tree hugger environmentalists get control of things. As for nuclear war, who knows? I doubt it. What might happen is a terrorist might set off one though.

[This message has been edited by Obi_Kwiet (edited August 19, 2004).]

...what?

------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

Banks and banks of humming machinery! I've never seen so many knobs. We're going to have to do something, Charlie! Try pushing that button there. No? How about that one? No, not that one either. I know! I'll try pushing this one. Hold my hat will you? Good fellow.

Seconded.

... what?

------------------
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Douglas Adams

If we let those tree huggers have their way, our cities will be overrun by plants, and they'll take up all of our oxygen!

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

Oh yeah! Now I hate tree huggers too.

------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

Banks and banks of humming machinery! I've never seen so many knobs. We're going to have to do something, Charlie! Try pushing that button there. No? How about that one? No, not that one either. I know! I'll try pushing this one. Hold my hat will you? Good fellow.

You know what, let's cut down all the forests. That way there will be no way for fires to spread, damaging the environment!

>.>

------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

Banks and banks of humming machinery! I've never seen so many knobs. We're going to have to do something, Charlie! Try pushing that button there. No? How about that one? No, not that one either. I know! I'll try pushing this one. Hold my hat will you? Good fellow.

Or better yet, let's nuke forests!

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

possible...

------------------
SpriteMod (JO 2003)

I'll bet we could extract uranium from all the meese in Canadia. Get to work on that.

------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

Banks and banks of humming machinery! I've never seen so many knobs. We're going to have to do something, Charlie! Try pushing that button there. No? How about that one? No, not that one either. I know! I'll try pushing this one. Hold my hat will you? Good fellow.

Don't nuke the forests, NUKE THE TREEHUGGERS!!!1!

------------------
In soviet Russia, thread posts YOU!

You mean Carbon Dioxide, right?

Plants need oxygen.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

This thread has shifted towards trees?

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)

---------@%

The Massassi JO/JA Single Player contest info (I don't know why I have this still in my sig)

Trees > nukes.

------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

Banks and banks of humming machinery! I've never seen so many knobs. We're going to have to do something, Charlie! Try pushing that button there. No? How about that one? No, not that one either. I know! I'll try pushing this one. Hold my hat will you? Good fellow.

The net oxygen output/intake of the world's rainforests is approximately zero. They do however do a fantastic job of keeping carbon dioxide levels safe.

I'm feeling that we're starting to stray too far from the sarcasm.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

save a cow, eat a peta member

------------------
What once was...
Snail racing: (500 posts per line) ---@%

I think nuclear weapons may be used at some point in the future, but I very much doubt it will be anything like the doomsday scenarios from the Cold War. Tactical warheads are getting smaller and smaller and may someday be used like bunker-busters or other conventional missiles. I hope not, though..the stigma will always be there.

Your intelligence dropped 4 points with that statement.

Anyway, I think a nuclear war is possible. There is A LOT of tension in the world and it has to give away sometime. Besides, it is human nature to destroy ourselves.

------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

WTF...now theres some backwards *** logic. I don't really support tree huggers either but to say that the environment will suffer if they get control is ridiculous and idiotic.



------------------
"If there's one thing I've learned it's this - you just can't shake hands with a fist" - David Allen Coe

I just basing that off of their moronic way of managing the environment. Such as blocking nuclear power plants from being built and forcing us to use coal and gasoline. Then they go crazy about using DDT even though it would save countless lives in Africa and we wouldn't have to use even more, less effective, but almost as harmful mosquito repellant. Then they start telling every body that we need to spend tones of money trying to prevent global warming, a theory that has been disproved. (one volcano can produce more CFC’s than humans could in 1000 years) I suppose it wouldn’t hurt the environment as much as just a lot of needless wastes of money, and vast stupidity.

..okay....... ...

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)

---------@%

The Massassi JO/JA Single Player contest info (I don't know why I have this still in my sig)

[This message has been edited by Echoman (edited August 19, 2004).]

i agree with vinny.

i am also uninformed, but it makes sense.

can an intelligent massassian please quote many parts of his post and rip it to bits so spe can have a different viewpoint?

(btw.... good going vinny, i'd vote for you)

------------------
Drugs & Stupidity, Tons of it.

plants suck up carbon dioxide and release oxygen....
if too many nukes go off in the atmosphere, the radiation/dust/etc from the explosions would cause something called "nuclear winter"... which a lot of people forget about... also, when a nuke goes off it creates an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP), which would destroy your HD, TV, Monitor, computer, etc,etc,etc... so... if we have a nuclear war, we'd be majorly screwing ourselves.... more like a mix between genocide (killing off an entire race) and suiside....
nuclear winter is just when the sunlight that goes into the atmosphere is blocked from the dust from atomic explosions, thus instead of rain... we get snow/hail... temperatures drop and we go into a deepfreeze.... or we just get cancer from the access radiation...
The End
or the U.S. just uses all their nukes and blows the planet of the face of the universe.... since they do still have over 30,000 nukes in stock

------------------
Carter: "whats wrong?"
Daniel: "this tastes like chicken..."
Carter: "whats bad about that?"
Daniel: "this is supposed to be macaroni and cheese..."

[This message has been edited by Admiral Zarn (edited August 19, 2004).]

I wouldn't say Nuclear War is imminent, but that's just my view of the world.
I was under the impression that DDT caused an unbelievable amount of damage to the ecosystem.

As for "tree-huggers," I have no problem with them. Eco-terrorists are a different matter, even if the criminal acts they commit are minor, I see a huge problem with their view on the world.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

A thread about the future and nuclear war.



------------------
nytfyre m0d || f33l t3h p0w3r || t3h l0st c0gz || OMF > *

agreed lol this world needs to be rid of stupidity ha

------------------
Excuse me sonny, do you know where I can find some booty?... Whoop there it is!

http://www.foundation.bw/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm#_Toc34744198

^ Josheph Caldwell argues that not only is nuclear war inevitable, but it's also a good thing. (I don't agree with him, so I'm not going to defend him... but hey, it's at least interesting to read.)

Here's a quote that's relevant to the question:

uh.

Nuclear power stations create radioactive waste that stays radioactive for decades. They're not pushing to use fossil fuels instead (or if they are they're a bit stupid), they're pushing to use renewable energy sources. Oh and don't just say "oh it's never going to happen". It already is. All the electricity for the entire city of Copenhagen is generated by a series of windmills and there are similar windmills up and down Germany.


The problem with DDT is that it affects the entire ecosystem, not just the mosquitos. The birds that eat the mosquitos die. The creatures that eat the birds die. The predators that eat the creatures die. Eventually, the humans that eat the predators die too. There's more to it than that, in that the dosage of poison increases for each step, but I don't remember the name of that effect.
Mosquito repellant doesn't do that.

Oh I'd love to see how global warming has been "disproved".
The effects of global warming are already being observed. Yes, volcanoes and trees do emit far more of those chemicals into the environment. But it's not about 'amount'. Volcanoes have been emitting such chemicals across millions of years, and the environment has come to adapt and compensate to maintain equilibrium. The problem is chemical imbalance. Over the last 200 years, human beings have drastically increased CFC emissions and disturbed that equilibrium. The environment is very fragile. This has caused a chemical imbalance in the environment leading to global climate change.
The "disproving" probably relies on the fact that scientists only have vague numbers on what is causing the imbalance and the effects, because the effects will take many years to study. The problem is, though, that then it could be too late.

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited August 19, 2004).]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html

Well, someone had to post it.

Anyways, I believe it is very probable that nukes will be used in war sometime in the next ten years. Just think of the growing list of countries that have access to them, and the growing hatred between some of these countries (read: India and Pakistan).

So what happens if, instead of a nuke, somebody actually creates a huge bomb with 20,000 tonnes of TNT (assuming the same density as water, this would have to be about a 25 meter cube) in it? Wouldn't it be the explosive equivalent of a nuke (without the radiation, EMP, etc.)? That would be cool. I think I'm going to try that...

------------------
Four dimensions, four fundamental forces... coincidence?

A) That would be very nice. But it's pretty expensive, and there is a not a steady amount of wind in all areas. Maybe we could concentrate on finding way of dealing with radio active waste. That would also provide a very good source of energy.

B)They used it in the 60's. It didn’t have all those bad effects. Many people are dying in Africa right now and they just need one good shot of DDT down there to help the problem.

C)Volcanoes are any thing but dependable. There could be 5 big eruptions one year and none for the next thousand years. Humans have not drastically increased any thing. If anything did it was Mount St. Helen. That thing put out more CFC's than we could produce in a thousand years. And yet, some how God has been able to deal with it. Twenty years ago every one was worried about global cooling. Another expensive "fad" worry.

Why can't I delte my double post?


[This message has been edited by Obi_Kwiet (edited August 19, 2004).]

A) Right, but it's money well spent. I don't think there's really any way to "deal" with radioactive waste, other than burying it in lead (or selling it to the military). There's no way to make it unreactive. I do agree, though, if there is some breakthrough in particle physics to affect the half-life of an atom, then nuclear power would be a fantastic choice, and is already a better choice than burning fossil fuels.

B) Yes, they did, and yes, it did. See here.
The effects of DDT on human beings are quite serious. See here. It also explains why this happens.

C) Yes, 5 big eruptions one year and none for the next thousand years. I'm not sure about the numbers, but that sounds like a fairly good estimate.
The Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, so that timespan is nothing. Volcanic eruptions are part of the natural cycle, and the environment has developed to be able to handle it and maintain equilibrium.
Observations of global warming are not based on 'amount' of CFCs in the environment (though the 'shock horror!' type sensationalist environmentalists will probably use "Cars emit X million litres of CFC gas every minute!" type arguments, but that really doesn't mean anything).
The environment can handle those CFCs, as it's part of an environmental cycle. It cannot, however, handle those CFCs and the CFCs emitted by human beings. The levels are being pushed above the level that the environment can tolerate, and the equilibrium is unstable. ('God' has nothing to do with it)
The observations are not based on amounts of CFCs in the environment (I don't even know if that can be measured), but rather the climate history across for the last few million years. This is done by studying the polar ice caps and glaciers, though I'm not sure what specifically they measure.
Weather patterns are the most obvious fluctuation, with western and inland europe experiencing weather never before observed. It hasn't been concluded whether this is caused by global warming or not, though.

Think of our activity as just another volcanoe. You know only 35% of scientiests think global warming is a problem.