3 ms·
Total peace wasn't immediately winnable, but establishing sole nuclear dominance was a precondition for it. Fast forward a hundred years and we'd have the capab
by marcoperaza 10y ago
Total peace wasn't immediately winnable, but establishing sole nuclear dominance was a precondition for it. Fast forward a hundred years and we'd have the capability to defeat asymmetric enemies with no losses of our own. And also the ability to quash any attempt at a build-up of conventional forces.
I know it's tough to swallow, but I think this would have been infinitely better than the world we have now, where war between nuclear states is still a very real possibility, and where the long-term dominance of liberal democracies is not guaranteed.
- fapjacks 10y agoRight. The Long Peace has been such a buzzkill. It's too bad we didn't instead have The Long Nuclear War.
- marcoperaza 10y agoThe relative peace of the last 60 years might not hold up. We are now constantly one mistake away from total devastation. There were several incidents, even simple radar anomalies, that could have caused nuclear war during the Cold War. We have made it this far through dumb luck.