I will discuss the idea of World War 3, why I think it will be a conventional war, and the benefits of nuclear deterrence. I will also look at the difference between WW1 vs. WW2 weapons. Today is part 5 of the “Largest Natural & Human Disasters” series. I think I may have a whole list to continue with for at least a few more posts like this.
If you have been following, you probably have heard of lots of announcements. #1 I have done a drawing and I will soon publish the winners of that, and will attempt to contact them. #2 My wife had a child, so I took a week off of posting in the typical sense. #3 I have lost subscribers due to too much reading. This leads me to… #4 Friday, I have made a post that is not what anyone has been used to. You really need to read it if you haven’t, because it will be a link to my OTHER website! I promise very little reading involved. #5 I cannot tell you when or even if, but I am thinking about changing the way my site looks. I am thinking about making it look like my other site because I have run into less problems with that particular setup (coding wise).
Now, let’s get started. My main topic is the potential and continually debated World War 3 (WW3) and why I think it will probably be a conventional war instead of a nuclear war. I recently did a post on the possibility of Nuclear Disaster and in that post I said that I didn’t think a big nuclear war was really as big a problem as most people think. I still stick to that. My biggest reason that nukes will not be used? The main Nuclear Deterrence (fancy word for, “I made you not want to use nuclear junk.”) in that war would be nuclear warheads.
You heard me correctly. Nuclear power is the biggest and I think will continue to be the biggest deterrent for the use of the same technology.
If you look back at WW2, or any war for that fact, when nuclear technology was used, it was almost always a state with that technology using it on a state that did NOT have that power. Generally, in war, when it is advantageous we will use the more powerful arsenal, unless the other person has that same capability for retaliation.
Powers in the past knew this, and still do. Why is the U.S. always in other people’s business about nuclear arms? Because we want to be the power, which means limiting the ability for retaliation. As nuclear power is developed, the potential destructive capabilities go up astronomically, and we should always consider the fact that a worldwide nuclear war is possible. But also as it is developed, the chances of that happening goes down as well. It is the inverse relationship between destruction and likelihood.
So what do I have concern with? There are MANY non-nuclear methods of causing wide-spread destruction. There are many proven and inhumane ways that have and could be used. In WW1 they used mustard gas. This gas pretty much melted and dissolved the lungs of the victim till the point that they coughed up their own lungs. In WW2, everyone was prepared for this to happen again, but it didn’t. Typically, if you are losing a war, you will pull out the “secret weapon” or you will stop at nothing to quit losing. So once the German’s and Japanese were losing, we figured it was coming… but it never did. Many times this was a concern, but fortunately, nobody has decided to use it.
But in WW2, we used nuclear technology. Once again, it was a decision based on the fact that we were the only ones with this technology. If nuclear power is used, I think it will be smaller, precision, and tactical strikes instead of the huge boom.
Other possible technology that may be used is chemical, cluster munition, napalm, or even biological weapons. If they can inject mosquitoes with the vaccine to malaria, they can use other viruses. If they can make a robot as small as a mosquito, they can use it for defense. The best and coolest technology that I have ever heard of through the years has been through weapons research. Actually, I recently heard about a weapon, and I have no idea what it is called, but it is essentially a tube dart that is full of concave plungers with seals. The idea is that it will hit the side of a tank or something, and as it hits, each plunger is inverted, essentially priming a really fast pump that almost instantly reduces pressure in the cab that will suck everyone right out of it through a tiny, bullet sized hole.
Not only is this sick, and twisted in my opinion, but it is possible and proven through testing. Weapons research people. That is where the money is. Nukes are not our biggest fear, even though they are the most destructive collaterally.
As far as most of us, we probably need to get away from the coastlines. I think conventional WMDs will be used on the east coast. An if nukes were used, it would be the west coast. So neither of these are a great place to be, but we should consider the fallout travel from the west coast if it ever really did happen. Large cities are obvious targets, and nobody will deny this.
Enter the challenge for: