5 ms·

Is there any way the world could become more peaceful, and we could get rid of the seemingly eternal gun-pointing happening between the USA (+ NATO), China, Rus

• forgetsusername 10y ago
  >is there any way the world could become more peaceful The world is becoming more peaceful. And in theory, nuclear weapons make the world more so, which is why these countries pursue them. Despite what the mainstream news likes to report, there's a microscopic probability that the DPRK would attempt to use a nuke offensively.
  • pearjuice 10y ago
    [citation needed]
    • forgetsusername 10y ago
      >[citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur... Now where's your citation to the historical increase in violence?
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    • krona 10y ago
      The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined -- Steven Pinker (ISBN: 978-0-670-02295-3)
    • Iv 10y ago
      http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/spectacular-video-putting-wwii-deaths-perspective.html http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/spectacular-video-putting-wwii... Skip to 14:00 for the relevant part. The number of casualties in conflicts has going down FAST in the second part of the 20th century. We are in a historical worldwide period of unprecedented peace. The most recent aberrant point in that downward path has been the Iraq war. But even this one pales in comparisons of the horrors of the past.
      • finid 10y ago
        The Iraq war was not really one in the true sense. It was just one country beating down on a smaller nation. If they had the means to fight back like the Vietnamese did, it would have been a whole different ball game.
      • SimonPStevens 10y ago
        If you're going to watch that video (and you should, it's great), I would suggest watching it on the source website[0]. It has a better interactive version where you can move around the charts, and I'm sure they would prefer to get the traffic directly rather than some intermediate site that's just embedded the video. [0] - http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ (I love wait but why, and Tim Urban writes some fantastic stuff, but this particular page is just an embedded video)
    • jonathanstrange 10y ago
      This is a well-known fact. Random link after superficial Google search: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace-after-1945/ https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace-after-1945/ Don't pin me down on this one. Statistics differ because they count differently. However, overall they will agree that the number of conflicts is declining. On a side note, the number homicides is also constantly declining in most developed countries.
  • goodcanadian 10y ago
    Despite what the mainstream news likes to report, there's a microscopic probability that the DPRK would attempt to use a nuke offensively. I would like to believe that, but I'm not so sure I do. There have been plenty of people in history who have advocated a nuclear first strike: MacArthur and 'Che' Guevara being two examples. I don't feel that Kim Jong Un or the North Korean government are particularly rational.
    • michaelcampbell 10y ago
      There's a fair distance between advocating and turning the missile key.
      • goodcanadian 10y ago
        True, and my two examples did not have the authority to push the button, but Kim Jong Un does. That, and I don't trust North Korea to implement sane nuclear control structures. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but I am unwilling to discount the possibility of North Korea doing something totally crazy. [Edited for spelling]
        • JoeAltmaier 10y ago
          "Doing something crazy" is NK's fundamental foreign policy. Its been described as, they want to be the crazy uncle who makes unreasonable, irrational demands to get concessions but doesn't go so far as to be committed.
          • goodcanadian 10y ago
            Exactly. This is a country that has sunk ships, shelled civilians, and abducted foreign nationals (Japanese, mostly), forcing them to work for the regime. Every time, they have pretty much gotten away with it. It may all be coldly rational brinkmanship, or they may be as crazy as they look. I would not put it past them to explode a nuclear warhead on Japanese territory as a big, "Don't mess with us," message if they thought they could get away with it. Remember, reality does not matter, it is what they believe that matters. You might say that would be national suicide, but I don't need to understand the motivation to understand that suicide bombers exist. Honestly, I don't know how the U.S. would respond to such an event, especially if they were not certain that they could prevent another launch.
  • puranjay 10y ago
    Probability of nuclear war before nuclear weapons were invented: 0 Probability of nuclear war after nuclear weapons were invented: > 0 No matter what you say, fact remains that by simply developing nuclear weapons, we've dramatically increased the chances of a nuclear war in the future.
    • rwmj 10y ago
      The original commenter was talking about war in general, not nuclear war. Having nuclear weapons makes certain sorts of war (eg. all US/Russian total war) insane, although by no means impossible. Whereas before nuclear weapons it was a lot more thinkable.
  • tsylba 10y ago
    Yes, those regimes - as Iran's - are looking for the nuclear weapon to protect themselves, as we do. That's not really fair to prevent other countries to gain access to it just because we disagree with their political views. In no way can we pretend our perspective to be "enlighten" by fair principles. As sadly as it sound, the H-bomb seems to promote peace through the status-quo : developped country (eg. USA, UK, France, ..) send troops but wheres there is no nuclear threats. Damocles Swords like that (nuclear / bio weapons) prevents us to go to traditional war against each others. Without them, we will end fighting each others, with fists and stones if needed. It might be due to the lack of this equlibrium weapons that terrorism arise : they can't fight traditionally on their land, neither can't they protect their ideology, so they aims at our weakest part. * Oh and, as a side note, it only seems to prevents physical war. Nowadays we fight and kill rather through our economy than our bullets.
    • shostack 10y ago
      It isn't just to protect yourself. It is for countries to be able to gain leverage in negotiations. Not everything is done with peace and the greater good in mind.
      • digi_owl 10y ago
        Once one start to think about it, international politics takes on the appearance of a Mexican standoff.
      • tsylba 10y ago
        Protecting one's interests, if you will.
  • collyw 10y ago
    Thats the theory with American gun laws isn't it? Yet they seem to have more gun violence than far stricter countries.
    • 67726e 10y ago
      I think part of the nuclear equation is there is a bit more rationality involved. It's not a couple hot-headed gangbangers or drunk rednecks shooting it out. It's heads of state, generals, etc. At first glance that comparison might seem relevant but the situations are so vastly different I don't think it holds much water. As an aside, on the topic of American violence itself, I recall reading a study a while back that America has always had much higher levels of violence than European nations, but I cannot seem to find it now. Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about?
    • serf 10y ago
      Well, the second amendment[0] says that weapons are necessary for 'the security of a free state', which is interpreted to mean security against standing armies of the federal government.[1]. Self-defense is the modern interpretation as of 2008.[2] I don't think it's quite a MAD situation. Hopefully very few are so disillusioned as to think that packing heat is the only thing stopping this whole place from erupting into gun-fire. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment [1]: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
• tim333 10y ago
  There's some evidence if you read Pinker's stuff that the world is becoming more peaceful so we can keep doing what we're doing. See also >The Decline of War - We are experiencing one of the least discussed, yet most remarkable cultural shifts of all time: war, one of our species’ most abiding and defining social practices, is at its lowest ebb ever https://medium.com/@angushervey/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b5ce#.sb1h696n9 https://medium.com/@angushervey/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b...
  • lloeki 10y ago
    More generally, violence at large is declining (although perception of it keeps on increasing, possibly because of easier information sharing, or possibly because of a growing intolerance about it) https://youtu.be/sjT4HlNJNgI https://youtu.be/sjT4HlNJNgI
    • semi-extrinsic 10y ago
      Perhaps humans, on average, are willing to accept a roughly constant level of perceived global suffering, and that the increasing ease of media documenting suffering is making it increasingly hard for governments to justify inflicting suffering on other countries?
    • daxorid 10y ago
      I've seen a compelling argument (with backing citation) made elsewhere that violence in the first world is actually increasing, but has been masked by advances in trauma medicine. Will edit this post with reference if I can find it.
  • mikeash 10y ago
    My worry is that median violence is down but in exchange for a small chance of destroying civilization each year. An average decline in war plus a (say) 1% chance of a global nuclear exchange per year is not a good situation in the long run, but would look great up until you hit that 1%.
    • applecore 10y ago
• spuz 10y ago
  This video has a great explanation of what a nuclear war would do to the planet and the people on it, how such a scenario might take place (in all likelihood, during peaceful times it would be entirely accidental), plus what you can do about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug-DJtvHFE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug-DJtvHFE0
• gaius 10y ago
  Jeremy Corbyn has stated that his policy is for the UK to leave NATO and that this will bring about World Peace.
• tsylba 10y ago
  When you look at the top five weapons exporter in the world [1], then at the United Nation Security Council permanent members [2], you'll understand there is no easy solution to that problem as it is, politically at least. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_larges... [2] http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/ http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/ tl;dr those who protect peace also nurture war.
  • jonnycowboy 10y ago
    correction - those who PROJECT peace also nurture war.
• GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  No nuclear weapons makes the horrible possible again. Remember WWI, WWII? Those were possible because no one was worried about their entire nation being levelled in minutes. Nuclear weapons constrain the actions of their possessors to a degree that global war between large (read: nuclear) powers is almost impossible. Without nuclear weapons, I doubt we have an over 70 year period of more or less peace between the great powers. When was the last time that happened before nuclear weapons? I can't think of a time without going back at least a millenium.
  • digi_owl 10y ago
    Nah. WW1 happened because nobody in charge had any clue how effective their new guns were. WW2 was payback for hurt pride from WW1. And the cold war peace have not been that much different from the colonial times.
    • lloeki 10y ago
      You're explaining why, GP is explaining that guaranteed mutual destruction preempts the why. IOW mankind reached such astounding levels of destruction potential that it just obliterated the possibility of war between potent parties. Case in point, I'm confident we could build even more powerful weapons, but we don't, because it's useless.
      • dTal 10y ago
        Man, don't say that. There's no point building a bigger bomb, true, but there's more to weapon "power" than the size of the bang it makes - precision, for a start. For example, a horde of autonomous killbots is a far more powerful weapon than a nuke; you could obliterate a country's populace without fallout and without touching the infrastructure. Do not think for a moment that the US military-industrial complex would not make these if they could.
• just_observing 10y ago
  "While private gunrunners continue to thrive, the world's biggest arms suppliers are the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, and China. They are also the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council." Yuro Orlov: "I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of those men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss, the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year, sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So, you call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil." Lord of War. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295
• koolba 10y ago
  > Is there any way the world could become more peaceful, and we could get rid of the seemingly eternal gun-pointing happening between the USA (+ NATO), China, Russia etc? Curious to hear what possible steps can be taken to calm the worlds warmongerers down further. What are possibilities for the future. The continuous gun pointing has been some of the safest times in all of human history. Sure it's probably bad for your nerves if you think about the reasoning behind how it all works, but I'd much rather have this than go back to actually using conventional weapons on a regular basis.
• jcranmer 10y ago
  We have gone 71 years without wars between great powers. While I am not a walking encyclopedia of wars, that is to my knowledge without precedent in the last millenium. Certainly, as far as I can reliably trace great powers (to the Thirty Years' War), it's the longest gap, the second-longest being between the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 and World War I (36 years), and the third-longest being the gap between Russo-Turkish war of 1828-1829 and the Crimean War of 1853-1856 (24 years). That change, largely precipitated by MAD, is nothing to sniff at.