4 ms·

> the nuclear bomb by preventing major countries from going to war with each other is a good contender for most impactful technology of the 20th century. It di

> the nuclear bomb by preventing major countries from going to war with each other is a good contender for most impactful technology of the 20th century. It didn't prevent the superpowers from having wars with each other. It just shifted the battle fronts, so now the superpowers fight through proxy wars, and the deaths all happen in distant, "developing" countries.

Tloewald 11y ago
It's speculation, right? Either it had an overwhelming effect OR it had little if any effect. We'll never know -- thank goodness. We do know that penicillin, clean drinking water, vaccines, and the bicycle had enormous effects all over the world.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > It's speculation, right? Either it had an overwhelming effect OR it had little if any effect. We'll never know -- thank goodness. By that logic, we can 'never know' anything about historical effects, ever, and it's pointless to discuss the consequences of any historical events, including the others you mentioned. But really, the effect of the nuclear bomb in shifting the battlefronts of wars to proxy wars in developing nations under hegemonic control is as clear and as accepted by historians as we can expect. It may not be quite on par with the "theory" of evolution being all-but-proven fact, but it's in that ballpark.
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    It's not pointless but we can tell for certain that some things had a certain direct impact. It's very hard to claim that the psychological impact of nuclear weapons was X as a matter of fact, and it's nothing at all like the theory of evolution which is confirmed by ridiculous amounts of direct and indirect evidence.
simonh 11y ago
In a world without nuclear weapons, the USSR would have invaded Europe (and the Middle East) and the entire continent would have been laid waste. They came ridiculously close to doing it anyway despite nuclear weapons. If you think that such a European war would have meant that conflicts in other parts of the world would not have happened, I think you're being a bit naive.

Tloewald 11y ago

It's speculation, right? Either it had an overwhelming effect OR it had little if any effect. We'll never know -- thank goodness. We do know that penicillin, clean drinking water, vaccines, and the bicycle had enormous effects all over the world.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> It's speculation, right? Either it had an overwhelming effect OR it had little if any effect. We'll never know -- thank goodness. By that logic, we can 'never know' anything about historical effects, ever, and it's pointless to discuss the consequences of any historical events, including the others you mentioned. But really, the effect of the nuclear bomb in shifting the battlefronts of wars to proxy wars in developing nations under hegemonic control is as clear and as accepted by historians as we can expect. It may not be quite on par with the "theory" of evolution being all-but-proven fact, but it's in that ballpark.
- Tloewald 11y ago
  It's not pointless but we can tell for certain that some things had a certain direct impact. It's very hard to claim that the psychological impact of nuclear weapons was X as a matter of fact, and it's nothing at all like the theory of evolution which is confirmed by ridiculous amounts of direct and indirect evidence.

simonh 11y ago

In a world without nuclear weapons, the USSR would have invaded Europe (and the Middle East) and the entire continent would have been laid waste. They came ridiculously close to doing it anyway despite nuclear weapons. If you think that such a European war would have meant that conflicts in other parts of the world would not have happened, I think you're being a bit naive.