If MAD became spontaneously void how much would it increase the risk of another world war?

If MAD became spontaneously void how much would it increase the risk of another world war?

Attached: A040CBC9-4CC5-4974-91AF-E4E35133D4EC.jpg (365x273, 16K)

>MAD is a policy

Attached: extreme_brainlet2.png (645x729, 107K)

But MAD is void
It's not believable, it increases the risk of a nuclear world by having it as a policy so it was dropped.

If MAD is void, then Samsung Option is dead, more Americans would be needed to defend the last bastion of humanity in the Middle East.

Guaranteed
But this should be in a QTDDTOT thread.
No thread deserved to die for this garbage.

Every shithead nation with more tanks than they're neighbor will go at it. Poos v chinks might get interesting. Russia might try some more land grabs, norks would invade sooks, and we'd likely see a new conventional arms race. Space would be weaponized to compensate for the loss of earth based strategic weapons, think more space v space than space v ground sorta stuff but expect city killers once we get manufacturing up on the moon.

Never forget that war is the continuation of politics by other means, even a 'minor' nuclear war will halt international trade leading to all sides losing billions of dollars per day, nobody, atleast nobody in power, wants that. The days of conquest to obtain national resources are over since it's more expensive than obtaining them with peaceful or atleast indirectly hostile means

>how much would it increase the risk..?
Enough to be of great concern. Especially since it's now known that as far back as the 60's a nation like Russia actually considers nukes to be a valid weapon to use on the battlefield. Let that sink in: small yield nukes to blow holes in their enemies defense is considered routine in war plans.

Imagine racist nation(s) that have a nuclear arsenal that don't like non-asians.

Sleep well.

Attached: DoomsdayClock_black_2.5mins_regmark-1.png (2956x2956, 38K)

Nukes probably don't exist. It's a very fucking stupid idea. Someone would have built and deployed one in a civilian context by now. Bubba doesn't care about the geopolitical consequences of his tinkering. Don't be so gullible.

there was that one boy scout that built a breeder reactor in his garden shed, these things are possible, just very difficult.

>If MAD became spontaneously void how much would it increase the risk of another world war?
US would attack Russia with almost 100% probability.

MAD has been void for decades.

>MAD becomes void
So the prions take over and make people lose rationale and logical thinking?

>this is what vatniks actually believe

>Samsung option
McNukes when?

>Yugoslavia never happened
>Iraq never happened
>Chechnya never happened
>The term "humanitarian Intervention" does not exist

This is what anyone with a brain believes
NATO has the most favorable position it will ever have, massive blockades followed by a land invasion could secure the kill

NATO is to prevent Russia invasion. The Russian shithole isn't worth invading.
Neither is the PRC.

I've often considered this. I mean the Americans have ballistic missile interception tech but it is largely untested against enemy designs and present in limited numbers. Honestly, I wait for the day we get extremely powerful lasers. At that point shit becomes extremely interesting because we shift away from single use interception missiles to defensive laser emplacements tackling whole volleys of missiles.


As to what would happen? Suddenly nuclear weapons shift from being the ultimate deterrent for warring states to only being a extremely effective bomb, if admittedly hard to deploy.

If for example the reason is as I described above, extremely powerful lasers eliminating nukes before they arrive, then it also becomes true that planes, helicopters and other such things are at risk of being eliminated too. If that is true, then suddenly we are talking about a world where being anywhere above the horizon is potentially a death sentence: a return to trench warfare and a possible loss of orbital infrastructure around warzones.

This is what Ukrainians actually believe.

>NATO is to prevent Russia invasion.
By putting NATO bases near Russian borders.

bump