Which of these scenarios is most likely?

[GMantis]

This is based on this website, which is nicely (if crudely) colourcoded:
http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/alternatescenarios.html
Summary:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In my opinion, these range from the pretty unlikely to the absurd. Only 3 has any of chance of happening in the near future.

[minionofmidas]

Even 3 is almost as unlikely as 1 and 4. 2, 5 and 6 border on the impossible.

[GMantis]

Even 3 is almost as unlikely as 1 and 4. 2, 5 and 6 border on the impossible.

6 might be doable if there's a great deal of tensions already. The first phase of 5 is possible, but the followup only if the entire Russian political and military leadership is completely insane. 2 would be possible, but under politicians likely to come to power in the US or Russia.
And I think the idea that Israel would European capitals and Russia because they are "antisemitic" the weakest part of these scenarios.
But 3 and 4 are far from impossible, though again the escalation requires rather insane leadership in some of the big nuclear powers.
1 is more unlikely than many think, but of course its very existence is cause for alarm.

[dead0man]

This might be more fun if we just discuss the likelyhood of the first parts of each have of happening.  (I could have worded that better)  They all quickly daisy chain into the idiotic after the second or third line.  I agree with GMantis that 3 is the most likely of all of these highly unlikely scenarios.  But even with 3, the second line is fairly crazy and just goes nuttier and nuttier from there.


Actually, 2 may have the most likelyhood of leading to a true WWIII.  The potential of this may be greater in the post Cold War environment now that MAD becomes less and less true as every year passes and more and more nukes go "stale".  The odds of a limited exchange (or one way street) of nukes is greater now than it's been since...say the early '50s.

..or not, I doubt anybody really knows.

[Silent Hunter]

Scenario 1, I'd say. |There was quite a number of false alarms in the nuclear department during the Cold War.

Also bear in mind that Russia appeared not to have detected the launch of North Korea's missile the other day. Considering the path of any likely interceptor missiles against a DPRK launch (see the article), especially any misses, that could trigger a full-scale war.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

None of these are remotely likely, but 3 is the least unlikely.

[Lief 🗽]

I find it unlikely that, as is presented in most of these scenarios, random states would just start nuking each other because everyone else is doing it.

[k-onmmunist]

All of them show a lack of understanding of geopolitics.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

#6 is hands down the most idiotic thing I've read in quite awhile. Israel nukes London and France at random?

[GMantis]

Actually, 2 may have the most likelyhood of leading to a true WWIII.  The potential of this may be greater in the post Cold War environment now that MAD becomes less and less true as every year passes and more and more nukes go "stale".  The odds of a limited exchange (or one way street) of nukes is greater now than it's been since...say the early '50s.

..or not, I doubt anybody really knows.

Yes, MAD is less true now. Now Russia and the US can destroy the world only once, not 2 or 3 times over, as during the Cold war: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datainx.asp
In reality, MAD is still in effect, considering the Russian reliance on their nuclear arsenal as the only branch of their armed forces to be consistently high funded.