What's that guyomech? I'd like to hear more details if you have time. Or can you point me to an article?

Pandora wrote: Regardless, I do know that we live in and will continue to live in very interesting times.

Yea this is def true. The world never ceases to confuse amaze and sometimes down right piss me off. I remember being a kid thinking how awesome it would be to be in th military, protecting everyone you love. Then I remember how real it all became when the news aired fleets of jets ready for dessert storm and that changed my mind in an instant.

I'll try to find a relevant article when I get the chance. For now I'll share what I know just from growing up in Cold War America and having to do those ridiculous duck-and-cover exercises as a kid. From what I understand, Russia (what's left of it) uses a similar system.

Missiles will not launch without launch codes, which are generated fresh daily using encryption that could only be cracked by running a mainframe computer for several billion years. The President carries these codes in a briefcase that is handcuffed to the wrist of a close aide at all times (I know this sounds like something from a movie). In the event of The Event, the briefcase is opened and codes are transmitted to the silos where they are needed. Each silo has its own codes.

Once a facility has been given the codes and a launch order, a pair of military personnel with keys locked to their wrists must cooperate by turning a pair of locks at opposite ends of the room simultaneously. This is to prevent a single individual from acting. However, even with cooperation, no launch can happen without the codes. Silo data systems are independent of the www and cannot be hacked via the web.

So it really does require some central authority and system-wide cooperation to initiate an intentional mass launch. Individual bombs could be stolen or perhaps their missiles manually hotwired and repurposed. That could happen in a societal breakdown involving mass chaos and disruption of authority, for sure. But I have a really hard time picturing a mass launch happening under such circumstances. Maybe that's a story I tell myself so I can sleep at night, but I do believe that the nuclear threat is much smaller but far more dispersed than any 1960's style bilateral Armageddon.

I just wish we could all love one another. I try not to catch any headline news because It's just so scary. Every once and a while though someone informs me, or I'm hanging out at their place and they turn on the news. Then I can't help but read all the news articles I can on it.

I can"t see any of the big players doing it due to MAD theory (mutually assured destruction). And i think the dick waving relates to this. Maybe the odd accident or rogue nutjob but a nuclear war is a completely irrational idea (not that i need to explain that to you all!)
The fear of nuclear war used to scare the living crap out of me when i was a kid. I think the politics of fear works for politicians in that they are gaining power from protecting us from the nightmare. Whether it be from nuclear armageddon or terrorism. In the case of nuclear war, once a nuclear strike takes place their percieved power of protection goes out the window. -Keep the proles scared, keep em malleable.

Here's a trippy little flow chart from back in the superpower days (1956). It's seriously LOL - as if survivors would collect bodies and transport them to these places . . . This is from when folks were acting as if a nuclear war could be won.

That, and Pandora's post... I am not even north american but I've seen tons of cold war propaganda, even did a paper once about fail safe, game theory and the like. Fascinating stuff, guys. And agreed with your comments.

I think global nuclear war is barely a possibility, because it cannot happen by accident and it goes against the interest of the machine. However, a localized conflict might happen, and eventually will. We should maybe start thinking less in absolutes about this... it's not either total peace or worldwide apocalyptic mayhem.

I'm more afraid of the crowds than the warheads, but just in case...

All of our current nations are much too immature to hold this kind of power. You can see this in the way some countries want more warheads and some want others to decrease their arsenal. In an intelligent society both sides would see the immense destructive potential and not use it as a weapon, even as a last resort. If you set off a big enough bomb, you are deciding to do much more than either destroy a nation, or defend one. That is why I believe the UN should make it completely banned for anyone to posses nuclear warheads until our nations have matured to the point that they can see the bigger picture, we are all on the same team here.

From what I gather the nuclear possibility is mostly Russia and the USA scaring other countries into submission.
There have been many programs for dismantling but such as the Military Industrial Complex is, there must always be someone,
Iran, North Korea, etc that are creating their own arms of which we must defend. I honestly doubt that the US will ever drop a big load like that again. If you think about it strategically, the nuclear bomb is a way of saying, if you attack, which the US seems to LOVE to do, that they COULD mess us up bad if they had nothing to lose.

I really do not think anyone wants to use a nuclear bomb, just because. Because, the US does have nice military equipment, if someone bombs us, it is going to be on. I do not say this with pride. I see what we do all over the world, right now even. Bombs being dropped, innocent people killed, the media does not speak of it. If you get very specific, the technology we use in many bombs are small scale, radio-logical weapons that contaminate sites for thousands upon thousands of years.

Like everything in America. Nuclear bombs are now semantic. We use em all of the time but they are not huge nuclear blasts.

It is funny that we are talking about nuclear bombs, because I swear smoking enough DMT is like witnessing a nuclear bomb and then you just do not exist in this realm.

Anyway, nuclear war is ever present, I doubt most well to do countries would dabble in it on a Hiroshima scale. My
fear is that one of these days a military plane is flying that crap over our heads and it accidently detonates. We should absolutely get rid of nuclear weapons.

No country has planes up in the air with nukes, unless there's a reason for them to be there. And the safety measures involved in accidental detonation scenarios are pretty serious.

It would be foolish to have hot planes flying around 24/7, since you'd either be emp'ing (or dirty bombing in a crash type event where the warhead containment was compromised) your own country if it was a domestic event, or starting a nuclear exchange if we "accidentally" had a warhead go off in a plane over another country. Other countries don't take kindly to nuclear armed warplanes in their airspace, even in airspace of neighboring countries that aren't nuclear capable.

Its like the cuban missile crisis, on crack. ICBMs can be intercepted, warplanes with nukes give you less time to neutralize a threat, accidental or intentional. Not to mention they're detectable, even stealth aircraft is useless if you have the right tech to see them. The mainplayers (us, china, russia) all most likely do, and will have jets/anti aircraft missiles on non-domestic military aircraft like white on rice if they enter their airspace, or proxy satellite countries airspace.

But regardless, the chance of an accidental detonation in air, either domestic or not, is slim to none. Besides, most nuclear arms are in missiles now a days, in heavily guarded silos, with redundant safety measures against unintended launch/detonations.

With that said, the B2 stealth is nuclear capable, and given its safety record, i don't think a warhead should ever be put on one of those planes. Its not detonations you have to worry about, but a crash could spread radioactive materials like a dirty bomb scenario.

EDIT- After a bit of digging, whether or not theres nuclear arsenals airborne at the current time, is an unknown. Its a unreasonable risk to do so though imho. Subs with cruise missiles and slbm's and silos with icbms can do the work, with much less risk.

But one thing for sure, is they are not live. All us B class warheads, reportedly have to be armed in flight, and that only would happen in the case deployment was on the table. Other countries are an unknown, but one would assume the risks involved with having a nuclear arsenal airborne constantly would be accounted for. Most of the warhead designs are in all likelyhood capable of surviving a crash and not detonating or breaking open and leaking radiological material, at least i hope so. The chances or an accidental in air "detonation", though, seem slim to none.