Nuclear War on the Horizon?

[The American Dream]

I do remember as a child being terrified of the few days during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, but other than that never gave the subject much thought. It is just like the news media to worry about what Donald Trump did on any given day, but seem not to care about situations that vital. There was the thought in 1991 that the old concept of nuclear war had greatly diminished.Because of Obama and his weak and confusing foreign policy, we find ourselves pitted against Russia and China on at least three flashpoints, Syria, Ukraine, and the South China Sea.Although Russia has less nuclear warheads than during the Cold War, they still have a good number. China is very well armed, and has modern weaponry.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ho-would-win-the-battle-the-south-china-16467

http://www.newsweek.com/south-china...es-china-united-states-barack-obama-xi-473428

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...to-are-preparing-for-a-major-war-with-russia/

 

[StefanM]

Russia and China aren't suicidal. They won't start a nuclear war out of self-preservation. And, especially in China's case, but much in Russia, too, they don't have religion's promise of an afterlife. If they attack, that's it. Game over. They will poke at us because they know we won't do a first strike either, but that's all that will happen. We will have minor skirmishes at the most.

Now, North Korea? They might be insane enough to try something. They concern me more than China and Russia combined. Proximity to China would likely be the only way to get a Chinese-American nuclear war going. I could actually see America not retaliating with nuclear weapons because of this. And if DPRK pulls this garbage, China would likely crack down on them with an unholy fire. Kim Jong Un would be dead by nightfall.

The biggest risk, IMO, is a stolen Soviet-era nuclear weapon. Russia isn't exactly an incorruptible regime, and just standard oversight could get a small load of nukes into someone's hands.

That won't mean nuclear war, but it could mean the worst terrorist attack ever.

 

[carpro]

I do remember as a child being terrified of the few days during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, but other than that never gave the subject much thought. It is just like the news media to worry about what Donald Trump did on any given day, but seem not to care about situations that vital. There was the thought in 1991 that the old concept of nuclear war had greatly diminished.Because of Obama and his weak and confusing foreign policy, we find ourselves pitted against Russia and China on at least three flashpoints, Syria, Ukraine, and the South China Sea.Although Russia has less nuclear warheads than during the Cold War, they still have a good number. China is very well armed, and has modern weaponry.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ho-would-win-the-battle-the-south-china-16467

http://www.newsweek.com/south-china...es-china-united-states-barack-obama-xi-473428

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...to-are-preparing-for-a-major-war-with-russia/

Of course it is. Obama made sure there would be a nuclear war in the middle east when he kissed the toes of the Iranians and Trump had nothing to do with it.

 

[StefanM]

Of course it is. Obama made sure there would be a nuclear war in the middle east when he kissed the toes of the Iranians and Trump had nothing to do with it.

At present the Iran situation is lose-lose, sadly. I wish we had a viable option.

 

[Sapper Woody]

At present the Iran situation is lose-lose, sadly. I wish we had a viable option.

The most viable option, imo (and I've proposed this before) is that we build nuclear power plants in countries seeking nuclear power, man it with Americans, and guard it with Americans. Then we sell the power to the country at a reasonable price.

This helps build their infrastructure, while netting hundreds of American jobs and getting another source of income into the government.

Likely what would happen is the host country would contract to pay us a certain amount per year for running the plant, and then they would sell the power to the people.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[StefanM]

The most viable option, imo (and I've proposed this before) is that we build nuclear power plants in countries seeking nuclear power, man it with Americans, and guard it with Americans. Then we sell the power to the country at a reasonable price.

This helps build their infrastructure, while netting hundreds of American jobs and getting another source of income into the government.

Likely what would happen is the host country would contract to pay us a certain amount per year for running the plant, and then they would sell the power to the people.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

If they would go for it, I think it would be a good idea.

Of course, we both know that the search for "peaceful nuclear power" is often just a cover for building weapons.