[sivispacem]

Pretty sure there's another topic to this extent, but I can't find it now, so this one can stay open.

[GTA_stu]

Well the thing is we are a really adapted species, in fact the most adapted species that has ever lived. So even if there was a mass extinction event like the one that killed off the dinosaurs I don't think it would wipe us out. You're talking a really really huge catostrophic event that would be needed. A nuclear war just doesn't seem very likely to me at all, because no 2 countries that each have nuclear weapons would ever go to war. Just would make sense. And even if they did, the only 2 countries who posess enough nukes to seriously threaten the world would be the U.S and Russia, and I think they've learnt their lesson from the Cuban missile crisis and the cold war in general. I'm not saying it's impossible, but very very unlikely.

[bobgtafan]

Technological advancements continuation with resource depletion.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Tuesday, Jan 24 2012, 10:35)

Well the thing is we are a really adapted species, in fact the most adapted species that has ever lived. So even if there was a mass extinction event like the one that killed off the dinosaurs I don't think it would wipe us out. You're talking a really really huge catostrophic event that would be needed. A nuclear war just doesn't seem very likely to me at all, because no 2 countries that each have nuclear weapons would ever go to war. Just would make sense. And even if they did, the only 2 countries who posess enough nukes to seriously threaten the world would be the U.S and Russia, and I think they've learnt their lesson from the Cuban missile crisis and the cold war in general. I'm not saying it's impossible, but very very unlikely.

That's simple deterrance theory - it lasts to an extent, but I think that if we really went to a war against the Russians and perhaps even the Chinese, I can see them being used by whichever side is about to fall.

[GrandMaster Smith]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jan 23 2012, 11:25)

Pretty sure there's another topic to this extent, but I can't find it now, so this one can stay open.

you sure do like trying to flex your internet mod muscle don't you..? lol
-that's because I am one, you pillock-


back on topic...

I believe humans greed and pride will eventually bring us to our own destruction.. Wars over land and politics and whatnot.

The sooner the human race realizes we're all in this together, the better.. We need to stop amplifying our differences and start recognizing our similarities..

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 07:55

[Irviding]

If you don't leave open multiple threads or enforce the board rules, you're bad. If you do you're bad and a disinformation agent. You have no luck sivis

[GrandMaster Smith]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 03:26)

If you don't leave open multiple threads or enforce the board rules, you're bad. If you do you're bad and a disinformation agent. You have no luck sivis

I'm just pointing out there's no need to take being an internet mod so serious..


I mean there's a point between doing the job you're told to do and becoming a power hungry mod who breaks the rules just to flex your own muscle.

Being a moderator for a site where the majority of the members are 10 year olds screaming about gta5 doesn't quite make you a badass.. or for that matter being the mod of probably the deadest section of the forum

Just don't take something so unimportant so seriously, it makes you look silly

[Toup]

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Tuesday, Jan 24 2012, 16:35)

Well the thing is we are a really adapted species, in fact the most adapted species that has ever lived. So even if there was a mass extinction event like the one that killed off the dinosaurs I don't think it would wipe us out. You're talking a really really huge catostrophic event that would be needed. A nuclear war just doesn't seem very likely to me at all, because no 2 countries that each have nuclear weapons would ever go to war. Just would make sense. And even if they did, the only 2 countries who posess enough nukes to seriously threaten the world would be the U.S and Russia, and I think they've learnt their lesson from the Cuban missile crisis and the cold war in general. I'm not saying it's impossible, but very very unlikely.

If it's so unlikely they go to war with nuclear bombs, why do they have them?

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Toup @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 20:00)

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Tuesday, Jan 24 2012, 16:35) Well the thing is we are a really adapted species, in fact the most adapted species that has ever lived. So even if there was a mass extinction event like the one that killed off the dinosaurs I don't think it would wipe us out. You're talking a really really huge catostrophic event that would be needed. A nuclear war just doesn't seem very likely to me at all, because no 2 countries that each have nuclear weapons would ever go to war. Just would make sense. And even if they did, the only 2 countries who posess enough nukes to seriously threaten the world would be the U.S and Russia, and I think they've learnt their lesson from the Cuban missile crisis and the cold war in general. I'm not saying it's impossible, but very very unlikely. If it's so unlikely they go to war with nuclear bombs, why do they have them?

Why have airbags in a car if you don't intend to crash it? Why own a firearm unless you intend to shoot everything that moves?

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 20:10)

Actually, this is the board that has the most rules and requires the most serious moderation. Get your head out of your ass and stop criticizing people who don't agree with you regarding 9/11 being an inside job.

This may fall on deaf ears, he's on an indeterminate ban currently.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 13:40)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 03:26) If you don't leave open multiple threads or enforce the board rules, you're bad. If you do you're bad and a disinformation agent. You have no luck sivis I'm just pointing out there's no need to take being an internet mod so serious.. I mean there's a point between doing the job you're told to do and becoming a power hungry mod who breaks the rules just to flex your own muscle. Being a moderator for a site where the majority of the members are 10 year olds screaming about gta5 doesn't quite make you a badass.. or for that matter being the mod of probably the deadest section of the forum Just don't take something so unimportant so seriously, it makes you look silly

Actually, this is the board that has the most rules and requires the most serious moderation. Get your head out of your ass and stop criticizing people who don't agree with you regarding 9/11 being an inside job.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Tuesday, Jan 24 2012, 15:35)

And even if they did, the only 2 countries who posess enough nukes to seriously threaten the world would be the U.S and Russia, and I think they've learnt their lesson from the Cuban missile crisis and the cold war in general. I'm not saying it's impossible, but very very unlikely.

I'd like to think those people hovering over the Big Red Buttons across the world would have more sense than it, but in all likelihood I'd say that once a nuke has been properly confirmed (none of that false positive lark) as deployed everyone will be slamming those buttons hard. People panic. Everyone. And if someone's attacking your friend what means they won't come for you too if they're successful?

In essence my point boils down to that End of Ze World flash video from like 2002, but that kind of cheapens the point.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Robinski @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 20:47)

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Tuesday, Jan 24 2012, 15:35) And even if they did, the only 2 countries who posess enough nukes to seriously threaten the world would be the U.S and Russia, and I think they've learnt their lesson from the Cuban missile crisis and the cold war in general. I'm not saying it's impossible, but very very unlikely. I'd like to think those people hovering over the Big Red Buttons across the world would have more sense than it, but in all likelihood I'd say that once a nuke has been properly confirmed (none of that false positive lark) as deployed everyone will be slamming those buttons hard. People panic. Everyone. And if someone's attacking your friend what means they won't come for you too if they're successful? In essence my point boils down to that End of Ze World flash video from like 2002, but that kind of cheapens the point.

The question is, even if this does happen, are we going to see a launch of all of then nuclear arsenals? I'm inclined to say no. I just can't see anything triggering a simultaneous release of all nuclear weapons, regardless of circumstance. Then there's the question of whether it would actually wipe out humanity? I'm sure that if you distributed them evenly across the earth's surface you'd annihilate almost all life, but that's not what's likely to happen in a nuclear war. The targets are going to be military command and control centres, then bases and government facilities, then industrial and economic infrastructure, then urban areas. In terms of geographical space, there's going to be nothing close to an even distribution.

I know I've brought it up in another thread, but currently (and at just about any time in history if I'm honest) the strategic implications of the offensive launch of a nuclear weapon by a rational actor are far more damaging than they are beneficial. The only state I can see being likely to use a nuclear attack is a rogue one, and even that's relatively unlikely. In an environment where significant numbers of rational state actors have such a damaging weapon, the likelihood is that no-one will use them. If the East and West didn't nuke each other into Armageddon in 1962 or 1983, then we're not going to do it now.

[Viperman]

Oh, this topic again....

For those to lazy to scroll to the bottom of page 1..

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=495251

[GTA_stu]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 20:19)

QUOTE (Robinski @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 20:47) QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Tuesday, Jan 24 2012, 15:35) And even if they did, the only 2 countries who posess enough nukes to seriously threaten the world would be the U.S and Russia, and I think they've learnt their lesson from the Cuban missile crisis and the cold war in general. I'm not saying it's impossible, but very very unlikely. I'd like to think those people hovering over the Big Red Buttons across the world would have more sense than it, but in all likelihood I'd say that once a nuke has been properly confirmed (none of that false positive lark) as deployed everyone will be slamming those buttons hard. People panic. Everyone. And if someone's attacking your friend what means they won't come for you too if they're successful? In essence my point boils down to that End of Ze World flash video from like 2002, but that kind of cheapens the point. The question is, even if this does happen, are we going to see a launch of all of then nuclear arsenals? I'm inclined to say no. I just can't see anything triggering a simultaneous release of all nuclear weapons, regardless of circumstance. Then there's the question of whether it would actually wipe out humanity? I'm sure that if you distributed them evenly across the earth's surface you'd annihilate almost all life, but that's not what's likely to happen in a nuclear war. The targets are going to be military command and control centres, then bases and government facilities, then industrial and economic infrastructure, then urban areas. In terms of geographical space, there's going to be nothing close to an even distribution. I know I've brought it up in another thread, but currently (and at just about any time in history if I'm honest) the strategic implications of the offensive launch of a nuclear weapon by a rational actor are far more damaging than they are beneficial. The only state I can see being likely to use a nuclear attack is a rogue one, and even that's relatively unlikely. In an environment where significant numbers of rational state actors have such a damaging weapon, the likelihood is that no-one will use them. If the East and West didn't nuke each other into Armageddon in 1962 or 1983, then we're not going to do it now.

But surely you wouldn't need to actually have a nuclear weapon hit, or have impact upon every part of the earth. You'd only need a certain amount and there'd be too much radiation for anything to survive. What that "certain amount" is I have no idea. But I've always thought that that was the more present danger as opposed to everything just being obliterated by a blast, or several blasts.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 23:06)

But surely you wouldn't need to actually have a nuclear weapon hit, or have impact upon every part of the earth. You'd only need a certain amount and there'd be too much radiation for anything to survive. What that "certain amount" is I have no idea. But I've always thought that that was the more present danger as opposed to everything just being obliterated by a blast, or several blasts.

Lots of factors affect the fallout of nuclear weapons. The first of which is the type of weapon- modern fusion type weapons generally produce comparatively little fallout compared to fission weapons. Of course, there's the local effects of Beta and Gamma radiation in the proximity of the detonation, but I'd argue that you've got far bigger things to worry about. The biggest threat is the irradiation of other materials and the effect that the spread of things like radioactive dust would have, but the amount of this created by even the largest of ground-level detonations is absolutely minute compared to the radiation emitted by, say, Chernobyl- which according to most reports only resulted in around 5,000 direct deaths and some estimate to be less than one hundred. Most nuclear weapons are detonated by air burst at significant altitude, using the pressure wave and heat to cause their damage and therefore the distribution of nuclear material in nuclear war using current nuclear strategy would probably be much smaller than one would think.

QUOTE (Viperman @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 22:25)

For those to lazy to scroll to the bottom of page 1..

Thanks, merged.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 22:39

[GTAvanja]

I have it figured out. Zombie apocalypse. And it's coming. Soon. Newt Gingrich won in South Carolina. You have to be practically brain dead to vote for him. So those people are basically zombies. Prepare yourselves.

[GrandMaster Smith]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 11:10)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Jan 25 2012, 20:10) Actually, this is the board that has the most rules and requires the most serious moderation. Get your head out of your ass and stop criticizing people who don't agree with you regarding 9/11 being an inside job. This may fall on deaf ears, he's on an indeterminate ban currently.

What do people disagreeing with 9-11 have todo with anything..? lol


I'm just saying it's rather silly to get all amped up over being a mod as if it's actually important or something.. There are threads on the front page of D&D that are months old.. GTAF is based around little kids, no little kids give a sh*t about debating lol.


And what's an indeterminate ban? I got a msg saying to stop impersonating members because I put the forum leader pic as my avatar even though it was already taken down by then.. I don't really get the whole thing and I was never even banned

[Typhus]

I think one man could cause the end of the world. If he was determined enough and had the right posistion, I think one man could really end all life on this pitiful little ball of mud. But the Earth is just a cog in the machine, now destroying the entire Universe, eradicating the sun and the moon and the stars, now that would be an accomplishment, that would be something. I'm sure there's a way to do it, there has to be. Anything can be destroyed if you hit it hard enough.

[Irviding]

Because you were making accounts in sivis' name.

The people here like to debate, actually. This board really isn't catered to serve 5 year olds