|
Instability would spark regional conflict, which would spark conventional war, which would spark nuclear war as one of the combatants gets desperate. I can't imagine any kind of global outbreak scenario that doesn't end in the bombs being dropped.
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Do you think that the death or debilitation of roughly half or more of the command structure of a nuclear nation would lead them to launch sooner as less-senior members are field promoted? Or would they focus on solving/isolating the disease over settling scores while the world dies? I don't think nuclear subs would be a factor since I think the launch would come from either India, Pakistan, or Israel.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I can't see wars breaking out over a global pandemic, or any stupid poo poo like a nuke firing, because every country in the world is going to be primarily concerned with maintaining order inside their own borders. Maybe a particularly opportunistic state that has managed to largely avoid the full brunt of the conflict intervenes in a limited way to smash & grab certain contested areas or whatever, but I can't think of a better vector to spread a disease than a literal armed engagement. You're completely failing to imagine how it could actually go down. It wouldn't be everyone in India and Pakistan getting sick. It would be a major public health crisis in Mumbai making Indian war hawk hardliners need to sabre rattle with Pakistan to distract and win an upcoming election. Oops, turns out they sabre rattled too hard and now a real war starts in Kashmir. Oops, turns out the plague got even worse in Pakistan, the government is on the verge of collapse, and a desperate leader is convinced launching a nuke is the only way to save the country. The current global balance of power feels like a bomb waiting to go off. I think a pandemic would light the fuse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 20:29
|
|