4 ms·

I don't think it's fair to say that nuclear weapons are why we don't have world wars anymore. I believe it has a lot more to do with globalization and the fact

• CamperBob2 9y ago
  I used to think that was the case, too, and then someone pointed out how incredibly well-connected and economically interdependent the world was in the years leading up to WWI. Global trade back then was like our modern dot-com boom, but with real money and merchandise. People were sure it would change everything. Turned out not so much. As long as the lives of the old men who ran the world weren't personally at risk, they had no reason not to go to war with each other. Nukes, not trade, were what finally changed that calculation.
  • frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Another possible non-nuclear explanation is democratic peace theory.
  • vkou 9y ago
    You may want to change your mind again, given that there is a trivial fallacy in "We haven't had a world war yet, so clearly nuclear weapons prevent one from happening." It is, in fact, the poster child for survivorship bias! We have also come extremely close to having nuclear war, on multiple occasions.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • eru 9y ago
    The 'long' 19th century that ended in WWI was rather globalized, and we only surpassed them a few decades ago. But we did surpass them. We have less armed conflicts and their victims now than during the MAD years of the cold war---perhaps that's a better piece of evidence that something other than nuclear weapons is helping us keep the peace?