5 ms·

>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 wh

>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

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