Does anyone think that there will be a nuclear war sometime in the next century?
112752
Will there be a Nuclear War? It is not likely that the world would survive one.  Will there ever be a Nuclear Attack in a war?  That is entirely possible, although the results of that would also be disasterous as well.  Will terrorist's gain a Nuclear or even a "dirty bomb" and use it against the West?  I feel that is quiet possible and probably most probable when you are giving a time line as large as a century.  There will never be a Nuclear War unless you classify World War II as a Nuclear War then it is possible that we will have a war in which a few Nuclear Weapons may be used, however the world for those who survive will never be the same place.
322245
We've beaten the odds so far, but probability has way of catching up to up you. Let's look at current crisis.\n\nTargeting sites in a nuclear war with Iran, or any country in the region, would involve widespread nuclear contamination and large numbers of casualties. It would be impossible to limit this to Iran alone. And even in extreme circumstances, the only clear requirement for high-yield strategic nuclear weapons would be on some selected command and control facilities; their use would have to be restricted to a small number of targets because of fallout considerations.\n\nIf Iran did acquire atomic bombs, it would put pressure on other countries in the region to do the same. Many Arab countries believe it is unfair that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia but also Egypt and possibly Syria, found themselves caught between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran, it would greatly increase pressures to pursue their own nuclear options. \n\nThis could result in a regional arms race in the Middle East which is likely to be quite destabilizing, given the number and intensity of conflicts and instabilities in the region. \n\nBecause of Murphy's Law, the conflict could escalate into a major confrontation between US and Russia/China, especially when long range missiles are fired by the US at Iran (for instance), it could be interpreted by early warning systems in Russia and China as an attack against them. \n\nThe military people call it "accidental or false attribution". How does China know the missile is headed for Iran and not them? By the time the flight path is determined, it could be too late to form a retaliatory response, hence, it's better to "launch on warning". A global nuclear exchange could be initiated in a nuclear war in the Middle \n\nThere's been over 20 close calls during the Cold War and Post Cold eras, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the accidental training tape incident at NORAD in the late 1970's, to the more recent 1995 incident involving a Norwegian science satellie launch. The hair triggers nearly put the world into a nuclear inferno. Most people in the world did not know how close they've come for the nuclear sword of damacles to come tumbling down on the heads. \n\nEven today, we only stand 28 minutes from a nuclear at any given time. The aging Russian early warning systems and their reduced security after the break-up of the Soviet Union should be real concerns. \n\nIf anything, a nuclear war will be the result of accidental launches from a false alarm from the two 'strategic' superpowers.
81345
as long as there are living beings on the plant there will be aggression and war.  War will not end, it will possibly get worse due to potential conditions in nature that will kill hundreds of millions of people in the future --> what would happen if there was a potato-famine like problem in China and India at the same time where they were unable to produce ANY food.  This would be 1/3 of earths population trying to feed themselves.  Both have nuclear weapons.  That is a VERY scary potentiality.
164650
It depends what you mean.\n\nChances are it will become the next NUCLEAR power. \n\nMilitarily, no. Having a few A-bombs is not enough.\n\nTo have an economy that rivals that of the US or China. Not even close.
478879
Yes if they continue with what they are doing and produce a bomb then it will be a World War but a very short one. With every nuclear nation hitting them at the same time. They will end up being a glowing hole in the ground.
319054
I sure hope not because a nuclear war isn't exactly my idea of a great time.  Iran has nukes of its own and will not hesitate to use them back.  If we get into a nuclear war, I suggest all you people who live in major cities move out to the country and become farmers or something because you know the major cities will be the first to be hit!  I'm in rural Oklahoma so I'm probably ok, unless Iran suddenly decides that it hates cows and farms.
600664
By then most people will agree that mankind will not be around. That is not the pessimists but now the optimists too. The question is how will this eventual demise arise? That will determine what the state of of the Earth will be in 1000 years. If the 'War on Terror' ends in nuclear holocaust then the Earth will be a barren land much similar to Mars is today. If global warming catches up with us then we will be in the middle of another Ice Age.\nThe alternative is that we humans, against all odds, do survive. In that case we will be living in a civilisation that is either as close to total anarchy as we can get without destroying ourselves or we will be in totalitarian state of control. Either way the future was stolen from our hands a long long time ago.
934476
Realistically, humanity will be dead. Sad, but true.\n\nSooner or later a couple of madmen with nukes will bomb everything, and everyone that moves.
30703
I don't think the people will think it's better or worse than now.  But if one of us were to pop up all of a sudden 100 years from now we'd be in shock.  The change in the world due to technology in the past 100 years is incredible, but the advances that the knowledge we now have are going to enable for the future are going to make the world an entirely different place.  Hopefully it will get better because the alternative is probably destruction.
50146
Probably, because they are clearly developing weapons of mass destruction.  I think a pre-emptive nuclear strike is in order.  Spring 2007.
517964
Do you want a nice answer, or a brutally honest one?\n\nIf former, then simply by stopping reproduction between people in certain places for a generation, causing people to die of old age without carrying on their line.\n\nsince this obviously won't happen, here's the latter:\n\nA global thermonuclear war, total exchange of 20,000 megatons or more, would kill enough people to cut the population in half, depending on the targets involved, the amount of fallout, and the length of the nuclear winter; that would pretty much stop all of this exponential growth, because people would most likely be more worried about staying alive than sex.\n\nNote: this is assuming that a species is intelligent or is living close to an intelligent civilization.
658278
Pretty slim,  in future global war will involve nukes.  And that will go really fast.
992827
Dont you worry, still about 50000 Odd years left for that!!!And Earthlings will probably perish long before that in a nuclear war!
1059584
NO IN NEAR FUTURE.\n PROBABLY COUPLE OF DECADES LATER.
75297
It really depends how you define "destroy the world" There will be a nuclear war. Most likley in the middle east. I don't think there will be a war that results in the total destruction of man kind. It is a sad state of affairs but I believe keeping nukes out of the hands of mad men is our best bet. Like it or not the best way to prevent these type of things is "Peace through superior firepower"
506763
Hypothetically speaking, I'm not entirely sure the world will exist in 10 years the way current world affiars are going what with the nuclear tension in Iran and North Korea...But I predect the economy will be better if we're still around.
453315
No... I would say that warfare of some kind or other will be being waged somewhere on the face of the planet for all eternity, but the likelyhood of a GLOBAL conflict has been steadily decreasing since the fall of the Soviet Union. I can't think of a plausible scenario for a full scale nuclear strike on or by anyone these days. The most likely scenario is that the U.S. will continue to engage in low-intensity "drive-by" wars like Afghanistan and Iraq. There will be other conflicts around the globe too but not a World War 3 per se.