[deleted]
-
[deleted]
There's no clear border-line that would trigger nuclear escalation. It's kind of meaningless.
We saw many proxy wars between the US and UDSSR. We recently saw how putin used nuclear threats as a tool rather than genuine or with anything happening after.
We saw a long stretch of peace in Europe after WW2 - especially when compared to before. This is due to positive relations, strong democratic systems, and economic development.
More mobility and communication technology allowed for people and states to become closer. Efforts to connect and establish systems with mutual gain. Ultimately establishing the European Union, Shengen Raum, Euro currency. Supporting social and cultural exchange and connection.
Strong social systems like constitutions, parliaments, separate judicative and executive, market regulation, anti-corruption agencies. Establishing a social economy with strong worker rights and gains (which have been eroding more recently).
The European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan) did a lot to initiate a strong western Europe economy. Economic success in combination with the aforementioned strong worker rights and representation meant gains and stability for the broad of society.
In other parts of the world we have seen many wars and proxy wars. During the cold war nuclear deterrents could well be argued to be the reason for investment in proxy wars, making them better funded resulting in more casualties or tragedies or extending them.
The nuclear deterrent may be a thing between nations with nuclear arsenal. It certainly didn't prevent nations with nuclear arsenal from initiating wars. We have seen it most recently with Russia and Israel.
Would we see less wars if every nation had nuclear deterrents? How much would it increase risk of mishandling or accidents? How come we still wars but (mostly) no longer use chemical weapons and nerve agents?
Nuclear may be another case of capability so outrageous, so inhumane, that even countries in war evade them and wave war within it's context, probing how far they can go without them and implementing war and conflicts despite them.
-
Holding everyone hostage sure feels like peace! Peace also somehow includes funding genocides and bombing countries in the middle east.
“ holding everyone hostage” is a huge hyperbole, your rights aren’t being infringed because other countries have nukes those big countries just stopped directly attacking each other which is a good thing.
Proxy wars have existed for a long time and will continue for a long time the entire American revolution only succeeded because France was funding the U.S. and Britain was too busy fighting France to devote enough resources to fight the U.S.
Could you imagine how many more deaths there would be if NATO directly fought against the Warsaw pact
-
[deleted]
It's impossible to confirm this, because we don't have data on a world in 2025 where nuclear weapons never existed.
One example against this that comes immediately to mind is North Korea. They say there without nukes for decades without being attacked. Now this might have been because Russia and/or China served as nuclear deterrents, but it could also be the case that in a world sans nukes would see the same result just because China has a huge conventional army. I mean they did back NK during the Korean War, as did America with SK.
-
[deleted]
Yes, on the whole nuclear weapons have made the world more peaceful.
Large nations rarely go to war with each-other, something which used to happen relatively frequently.Of course the world isn't peaceful, but it would be worse without MAD.
-
Yes, on the whole nuclear weapons have made the world more peaceful.
Large nations rarely go to war with each-other, something which used to happen relatively frequently.Of course the world isn't peaceful, but it would be worse without MAD.
I get the feeling though that MAD is wearing off. Countries are rightfully terrified of using nuclear weapons to the point that they are testing attacks against each other through thinly-veiled proxies.
Two years ago NATO was scared of allowing Ukraine to attack Russia, for fear of defensive nuclear strikes. Today we know that Russia will not even use nuclear weapons in self-defence.
-
I get the feeling though that MAD is wearing off. Countries are rightfully terrified of using nuclear weapons to the point that they are testing attacks against each other through thinly-veiled proxies.
Two years ago NATO was scared of allowing Ukraine to attack Russia, for fear of defensive nuclear strikes. Today we know that Russia will not even use nuclear weapons in self-defence.
Today we know that Russia will not even use nuclear weapons in self-defence.
?
-
Today we know that Russia will not even use nuclear weapons in self-defence.
?
Russia threatened that it will use nuclear weapons as soon as the Ukraine attacks russia back on russian soil.
Ukraine attacked russia on russian soil, and russia didn't use nuclear weapons. Because it's too afraid of nukes being returned to them.
-
Russia threatened that it will use nuclear weapons as soon as the Ukraine attacks russia back on russian soil.
Ukraine attacked russia on russian soil, and russia didn't use nuclear weapons. Because it's too afraid of nukes being returned to them.
Oh ok, I see ty
-
Nuclear weapons are the single biggest mistake humanity has ever made next to the Industrial revolution.
We still fight horribly bloody wars even with the threat of nuclear annihilation. It is obvious that nuclear weapons do nothing but make everything worse, and the materials used to create them would be better used for energy generation.
If we were smart we would decommission every weapon on the planet and ensure no group or person can make another one, and put the materials to a better use.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I disagree, and the first time we used nukes on each other was completely justified.
Do some research into WWII-era Japan. They were horrific, just as bad as the Nazis and worse in many cases. They weren't going to surrender without being nuked. Military leaders even plotted overthrowing the prime minister after they were nuked so they could keep fighting and keep killing.
If the Allies had gone through with their invasion, it would have been a bloodbath with several times more deaths, both civilian and military, than what we got with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Right now it's 'cool' to revise history and say things like "Japan shouldn't have been nuked" or "the US civil war wasn't about slavery."
Open your eyes. Don't let the sensationalized crowds lead you astray; they don't know any better.
-
I disagree, and the first time we used nukes on each other was completely justified.
Do some research into WWII-era Japan. They were horrific, just as bad as the Nazis and worse in many cases. They weren't going to surrender without being nuked. Military leaders even plotted overthrowing the prime minister after they were nuked so they could keep fighting and keep killing.
If the Allies had gone through with their invasion, it would have been a bloodbath with several times more deaths, both civilian and military, than what we got with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Right now it's 'cool' to revise history and say things like "Japan shouldn't have been nuked" or "the US civil war wasn't about slavery."
Open your eyes. Don't let the sensationalized crowds lead you astray; they don't know any better.
I disagree, and the first time we used nukes on each other was completely justified.
Do some research into WWII-era Japan. They were horrific, just as bad as the Nazis and worse in many cases. They weren’t going to surrender without being nuked. Military leaders even plotted overthrowing the prime minister after they were nuked so they could keep fighting and keep killing.
If the Allies had gone through with their invasion, it would have been a bloodbath with several times more deaths, both civilian and military, than what we got with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Right now it’s ‘cool’ to revise history and say things like “Japan shouldn’t have been nuked” or “the US civil war wasn’t about slavery.”
Open your eyes. Don’t let the sensationalized crowds lead you astray; they don’t know any better.
Go bother someone else with your "do some research" and "don't be a sheep" rhetoric. I don't argue with 10 day old accounts operating in bad faith on 13 day old comments.
-
I disagree, and the first time we used nukes on each other was completely justified.
Do some research into WWII-era Japan. They were horrific, just as bad as the Nazis and worse in many cases. They weren’t going to surrender without being nuked. Military leaders even plotted overthrowing the prime minister after they were nuked so they could keep fighting and keep killing.
If the Allies had gone through with their invasion, it would have been a bloodbath with several times more deaths, both civilian and military, than what we got with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Right now it’s ‘cool’ to revise history and say things like “Japan shouldn’t have been nuked” or “the US civil war wasn’t about slavery.”
Open your eyes. Don’t let the sensationalized crowds lead you astray; they don’t know any better.
Go bother someone else with your "do some research" and "don't be a sheep" rhetoric. I don't argue with 10 day old accounts operating in bad faith on 13 day old comments.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Umm, ok.
I guess you never learned how to admit when you're incorrect.
I don’t argue with 10 day old accounts operating in bad faith on 13 day old comments.
Yeah, this is part of the mental gymnastics you go through to protect your ego. You can't be wrong if the person correcting you is on a new social media account or your comments are x days old, lol. I said nothing in bad faith, so you're just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
I used to expect more from people like you, but now I see more reasons why I shouldn't.
The next-generation's brains are fried because they've been conditioned to think they're perfect all the time. You are incapable of taking criticism without throwing a tantrum and attacking the criticizer.
