Don't you think that Einstein was being a bit paranoid when he said that a third world war would send us into a new stone age?

Question

Don't you think that Einstein was being a bit paranoid when he said that a third world war would send us into a new stone age?

Answer 1

Pessimistic, not paranoid.

Answer 2

i think he was being positive about it i sarcastic way?

Answer 3

No, most likely we d go extinct, but it would take at least a century to build up everything that was destroyed. And that s optimistic.

Answer 4

No - Albert knew the destructive capabilities of modern warfare esp. when nuclear weapons are used. Why do you suppose the rich spend so much time and money building themselves cellars to hide in? They believe they may survive a nuclear war and thus live comfortably surrounded by their new army of Zombie slaves. What they seldom add to their theory is the fact that the Earth will become uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years.



The only hope for mankind is Mars

Answer 5

With the advent of nuclear weapons, Einstein was right on the nose- a nuclear war would destroy civilization and the survivors, if any, would indeed be back in the stone age.



PS: To the thumbs-downer... really? What do you think the result of a nuclear war might be? An alleviation of Vermont's traffic problems?



Okay, you think we'd survive a nuclear war? Who the F**k are you, Dr. Strangelove?

Answer 6

No, merely making the fair assumption that the "Third World War" would involve extensive use of nuclear weapons.

Answer 7

He was being realistic. Let us exclude all peaceful uses of nuclear energy for the moment. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki both the US and the Soviet Union entered into an arms race to see who could build the bigger and better bomb. Look up the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and see just how close to a nuclear war the US and the Soviet Union came. The credit for preventing a nuclear war has to go to the Soviets because they were the ones who "backed down".

Let us now move into the 70's when both the US and the Soviet Union signed non proliferation nuclear pacts, an international nuclear monitoring agency was established.in order to control which nations had access to nuclear weapons. The nations which are signatories to these nuclear pacts realise the danger of the weapons and aren't going to use them. It's known as MAD- Mutually Assured Destruction.

The problem is with rogue states who are members of the "nuclear weapons club" and individual groups with their own ideologies and agendas. They simply don't care or are interested in the consequences of launching nuclear weapons.

If one group fires a missile then you can be sure that others will do the same and the consequence is that if people aren't killed immediately, the radiation will kill them over the next several weeks. Dust will sent into the atmosphere blocking out sunlight- nuclear winter- causing plants to die. Most survivors will die of starvation and those who don't will fight over the few resources left. Then there is the radioactive fallout. The radioactive dust will come back to earth in the form of rain or snow thus further poisoning the earth. for thousands of years. Look up the half-life of elements such as Strontium, Cobalt,

What would be left after a nuclear holocaust would be the debris of cities. There would be no electric power plants, water purification plants, etc.We would be right back in the Stone Age.

You may to see films such as :"Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Love the Bomb and Stop Worrying", "Threads", documentaries showing the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

When the first atom bomb was successfully tested Oppenheimer quoted a line from the Veda, "I am become Death, The Destroyer of Worlds".

Answer 8

My father was an engineer with the manned spacecraft program. Long after the fact, it came to light that during the Cuban Missile Crisis he was pressed into service at a certain Air Force base to install nuclear warheads onto missiles as fast as they could, partly because he had clearance. Yes, it was close.

Answer 9

It could still happen, and it would.

Although it would be up to the more intelligent of us to rebuild with what we have already learnt.

Answer 10

no. please read up on the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.



you don't even necessarily need nuclear weapons. you could do the job nicely with biological or chemical weapons.

Answer 11

i think he was tweaking cuz he ran out of magic thinking dust.

Answer 12

Well an all out nuclear war would demolish every country involved and that's what he was referring to ( use of nuclear weapons) but it will only take 7 more nuclear weapons to permanently destroy the earths atmosphere so we'd have to worry about that more than ww3

Answer 13

You misread what he said. The gist of what he said was that if there was a Third World War, although he could not predict how it would be fought, he could predict the fourth. It's an easy prediction to make.



And there is no paranoia, just a sensible observation.

Answer 14

That's assuming we survive. If there

are multiple 1000s of nuclear bombs

going off all over the globe, the future

looks really bad.



Living in the Stone Age would be a

whole lot higher than what is left.

Answer 15

NNOOO..... he was being optimistic... foolishly so. Ever seen the aftermath of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or the gassing of the Kurds?

Answer 16

Read "A Canticle for Leibowitz" by Walter Miller, then go see the four Mad Max movies.

Answer 17

Further back than that I think.

Answer 18

The Biblical prophecy of Ezikiel discusses the Battle of Jerusalem. At the point of capitulation weapons are burned en tasse.



We do not really know what that could be =perhaps biological war fare;Nuclear is uncertain because the weapon is uncontrolable and lingers radiation to both combatant.



Einstein had no idea that the 3rd world war had to do with natural resources rather than religion.Einstein was only expert in his theory of special relativity.He certainly was not paranoid.

Answer 19

You know, the Cold War would have been avoided if Jewish traitors hadn't conspired with the KGB to deliver American nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union.

Answer 20

You seem to be misusing the word "paranoid". Maybe look it up and learn to use it correctly.



Einstein was making a point. Obviously it went over your head but that doesn't make him paranoid.

Answer 21

Let's not find out.

Answer 22

First let s draw a distinction between a world wide nuclear holocaust and a third world war.



Though it is often assumed they are the same thing it is not necessarily true. Just think of the global war on terror where the whole world declared or undeclared is at war with terrorists in general and ISIS in particular. This could be categorised by future historians as the third world war.



If by third world war you mean nuclear holocaust then Einstein was being optimistic. It is highly unlikely anything other than a handful of particularly hardy insects would survive a nuclear winter which is the inevitable consequence of an all out nuclear war.

Answer 23

Optimistic , oblivion is more to the point,

Answer 24

Yes

Answer 25

Nope - in the 1960's it was pretty much planned that way - have so many weapons nobody would start, but if it started, probably nuclear winter.

Answer 26

Not really... he was aware of the destructiveness we were capable of in 1945 - and it was growing exponentially at that time. While it has gotten better since the mid-70's, (when we could destroy mankind 6-times over), today we can only destroy mankind about 3-times over.

He was worried about war destroying our capability to build; 20 years after his death, people were worried about our capability of destroying mankind *completely.* Sure, he was a bit paranoid - just not paranoid *enough*.

Answer 27

The easy fossil fuel sources are all gone.

An all-out nuclear exchange will see ALL wells, mines etc etc rendered long term radioactive.



From scratch with no easy power source.

Answer 28

If humans had to virtually start over again , they would not be able to reach a technological society again as all the (easy to get at) natural resources needed to do that were used up the first time round.



Our (technological) evolution was a one shot chance

Answer 29

It's obvious that you didn't live during the Cold War era. Anyone that has would understand the paranoia of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. So you need to take the quote within the proper context of the time period that he made it.

Answer 30

A third world war will be fought with nuclear weapons. Once one nation starts launching theirs, other nations will have no choice but to launch theirs. Mankind and our "superior" intellect will turn this world of ours into a wasteland. Yes, we would have to start from scratch.

Einstein was a brilliant man. He just foresaw the inevitable.

Answer 31

No, but a bit strange for his time. Reasoning behind this statement is a somewhat recent controversy over a war that could potentially spark with Russia that involves a threat of an enormous EMP (electromagneticpulse) bomb that could wipe the USA of all electronics and set us back to the "stone age." Which of course would cause a huge reaction of our Allied Powers either l, A: a third World War. Or B: A Nuclear Warfare which could very easily cause mass eradication. While both are as equally terrifying as the other. Select Nations have ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missle) stations where two keys are required to activate, simultaneously. Once activated all Nations will rush to activate their's.

Answer 32

It hasn't happened yet

Answer 33

no

Answer 34

No, actually it is a very logical answer seeing as he lived in a time with 2 world wars you could expect him to think a third one would completely obliterate the world

Answer 35

nope. he was right. we'll see.

Answer 36

While empires will collapse, new ones WILL EMERGE! Summon the masters! All jokes aside however, yes, he was paranoid however not entirely. People will still survive in bunkers

Answer 37

It would send us into a new bronze age.

Answer 38

No he was commenting on how advanced military arms could get and what could potentially happen if there was a WWIII.

Answer 39

Let's hope we never find out.

Answer 40

I believe Einstein. I think his theory has been correct, for the last few eons. I think that we are not the first industrial society. Only one of many.



Explain ancient legend: The day the world caught fire.



It was not all a fable.

Answer 41

Sorry to say, that's not something he said.

Answer 42

He was being prophetic......i am not that optimistic.........

Answer 43

He was being super paranoid, and also he was brainwashed by the media. For a start, Einstein did not invent or help to build the A-bomb. He probably got spooked by the American paranoia about the Communist invasion.

His comment about WW IV being fought with sticks and stones is nonsense. As a smart guy, he should be ashamed unless he said it to be funny.

He would have known that transport of troops would be impossible in a post WW III world so any battle would not be a world war

Since people would already know about mobile phones, internet, aircraft carriers, M16s etc there would be a very rapid advancement from the stone age to modern weapons

Answer 44

Considering the times he was alive and the awful war deeds that occurred. I'd say "no". Even today, we teeter on the edge. There are more countries that can make these atomic weapons than ever before.



"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Einstein

Answer 45

Einstein was nothing but a propped up celebrity designed to help convince westerners to put their faith in jews. He wasnt even all that good of a scientist.

Answer 46

The Americans will start it. Barmy as a frog on toast. Idiots to a man.

Answer 47

Yes, and justifiably so.



At the height of the cold war there were around 60,000 nukes in existence. The detonation of a large proportion of these would have eliminated all forms of civilisation and forced survivors into a bleak existence in a poisoned landscape where they would have to scrounge and improvise to exist. Just as we did back in the stone age.



Today, the number of nukes in active service is around the 5,000 mark. Still easily enough to seriously damage civilisation.



hoarseman gave an accurate appraisal of the situation after a nuclear war as it would happen today. All the easily mineable resources are gone: ironically much of it was used to build and maintain the nuclear stockpile from the cold war. Survivors would not be capable of rebuilding civilisation, as they could not muster the effort and expense needed to reach what resources remain. We would not now go right back to the stone age becasue the environment would not be so completely ruined as it would have been a few decades back, instead it would be more like a permanent and inescapable dark ages existence.



Cheers!

Answer 48

I admire Tham153 for his outspokenness. What he meant is Einstein felt that some humans would survive & live through that nuclear winter.

By attributing to Einstein certain Paranoia, you exposed your utter ignorance. Probably you didn't live through the Cold War ( that many illiterate people were then, enjoyed the bliss of ignorance). Humanity (or the two big superpowers) was having a fit of madness to kill us all in a collective Harakiri. The total destructive power of the nuclear tipped missiles arraigned against each other could kill every man, woman & child on the planet several times over (I think it was 5 times). This Mutual Assured Destruction was the handiwork of all the "generals' of these two super powers. The generation born after 1991 were delivered from the womb of Cold War safely & must thank their stars for that. They didn't experience the mental stress that the previous generation was subjected to nor could even imagine it.

Though Einstein died much before this figure was built up over the next four decades, he was the sanest person who alone could 've made this remark, half in jest, in utter frustration.

Answer 49

Hahahaha - why? Do you think WW 3 would be such a good idea and wouldn't really hurt much?



It would be MUCH worse than a new stone age mostly because people are not adapted to it and any survivors of the fire storm would just sit by the road and starve.

Answer 50

Often times the scientific community needs to overemphasize dangers so that common folk and politicians can understand.

Check out the "Death Clock", scientists use it to try and let the world leaders realize how close we are to reaching the point of no return, where we would result in an apocalyptic world or the end of humanity.

Answer 51

No i dont

Answer 52

Why?



If all technology and food supplies and clean water and communication with other humans -

This is NOT just a return to the 'stone age'.

This would be a would be a return to the Proterozoic

(before complex animal life as we recognise it).

Answer 53

No, he predict something that can occur.

Answer 54

If there is ever a third world war at least one country would use atomic or nuclear weapons.So far all of the super powers have fought wars using proxies.

Answer 55

stone age maybe too extreme ...

how about a new middle age

Answer 56

From what I know of the time of the fifties and sixties he was being very reasonable. During that time with the MaCarthy hearings and the fear of communist there was a very possibility of there being a third world war, and if we would have went to war he was right.



We may have started with advanced weapons but, by the end of it there was a good chance of us using rocks and spears by the end of it.

Answer 57

Don't you think that you are being way too delusional and optimistic about a third world war?

Answer 58

No.

Answer 59

I think an iron age is more likely than a stone age, but either way it won't be fun or comfortable.

Answer 60

No - I think he was being optimistic



(he assumed humanity would survive - I dont think it would have

einstein died before H bomb size, quantity and delivery systems became developed to the extent they did

In his time they werent many, they were small in yield (but heavy in weight), and were difficult to deliver to your enemies country (being primarily by aircraft - long range missiles being in their infancy)

Answer 61

Not at all.



He IS correct