4 ms·

Nukes will never be given up. World peace, at the macro level, has definitely benefited from their existence. If everyone gave up their nukes, might is right wo

Nukes will never be given up. World peace, at the macro level, has definitely benefited from their existence. If everyone gave up their nukes, might is right would be the order of the day and we'd be seeing many more major regional wars. We do need better technology for preventing close calls - institutional technology, communications, information gathering, to prevent misunderstanding. It's the best approach for the world we live in, since we will never live again in a world without nukes.

jacquesm 9y ago
> Nukes will never be given up. South Africa had them and gave them up. But if you're right then, inevitably, they will end up being used. > World peace, at the macro level, has definitely benefited from their existence. Yes, for the time being, and you really need to qualify that statement. 70 years is an eyeblink. > If everyone gave up their nukes, might is right would be the order of the day and we'd be seeing many more major regional wars. Not necessarily, for instance, none of the countries in Latin America have nukes and I doubt if having them would lead to less war in the region. The major reason why war breaks out is resources. > We do need better technology for preventing close calls - institutional technology, communications, information gathering, to prevent misunderstanding. I think this is contradictory with nuclear proliferation. The more countries and eventually organizations with access to nukes the bigger the chance of an accident, even with technological gizmos to prevent 'mis use' (as if there is any good use...). > It's the best approach for the world we live in, since we will never live again in a world without nukes. This may be true, but it does not have to be true. If there is one thing that history has taught us it is that we do not deal in absolutes. Nuclear stockpiles are already down from their high points, which is a trend worth appreciating, at the same time the number of countries with nukes is up. The two will sooner or later lead to either a nuclear confrontation at some level with - hopefully - limited effect (a few billion dead perhaps?) which might teach the remainder that these weapons have no place in a sane world. Depending on where the victims will be and whether or not they were members of a society that believed strongly in having nuclear weapons we might come to our collective senses or we might conclude that having nuclear weapons is the way to go.
- barrkel 9y ago
  People will not stop trying to establish domination over one another. If history has taught us anything, it's that. Status-seeking is built in to the human genome, and what counts as status changes with fashion - one day it's empire building, another day it's moral crusades, yet another it's extermination of the Other. You're right that 70 years is an eyeblink. Without nukes, I would expect bloodier wars than WWII every 50 to 100 years. We may still see it yet with autonomous drones, and we'll definitely see it if a realistic, reliable defence to ballistic missiles is established. I don't see a way out beyond altering the psychological utility function of humans at the genetic level, but no such technology could be created and deployed without it being used for tyranny. We might slowly breed it out of the population, but we'd need a different economic structure that doesn't rely so heavily on competition, and that's not going to happen any time soon.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > People will not stop trying to establish domination over one another. That depends on where in the world you are looking. There are plenty of places where people are not trying establish domination over neighboring countries. That something is in our nature does not mean automatically that as a society we can not transcend those elements. In fact, almost all of society is an effort at transcending those elements. We've come a long way in terms of organizing ourselves, we recognize that war is a 'means of last resort' and there are plenty of people who would not support wars of aggression.

jacquesm 9y ago

> Nukes will never be given up. South Africa had them and gave them up. But if you're right then, inevitably, they will end up being used. > World peace, at the macro level, has definitely benefited from their existence. Yes, for the time being, and you really need to qualify that statement. 70 years is an eyeblink. > If everyone gave up their nukes, might is right would be the order of the day and we'd be seeing many more major regional wars. Not necessarily, for instance, none of the countries in Latin America have nukes and I doubt if having them would lead to less war in the region. The major reason why war breaks out is resources. > We do need better technology for preventing close calls - institutional technology, communications, information gathering, to prevent misunderstanding. I think this is contradictory with nuclear proliferation. The more countries and eventually organizations with access to nukes the bigger the chance of an accident, even with technological gizmos to prevent 'mis use' (as if there is any good use...). > It's the best approach for the world we live in, since we will never live again in a world without nukes. This may be true, but it does not have to be true. If there is one thing that history has taught us it is that we do not deal in absolutes. Nuclear stockpiles are already down from their high points, which is a trend worth appreciating, at the same time the number of countries with nukes is up. The two will sooner or later lead to either a nuclear confrontation at some level with - hopefully - limited effect (a few billion dead perhaps?) which might teach the remainder that these weapons have no place in a sane world. Depending on where the victims will be and whether or not they were members of a society that believed strongly in having nuclear weapons we might come to our collective senses or we might conclude that having nuclear weapons is the way to go.

barrkel 9y ago
People will not stop trying to establish domination over one another. If history has taught us anything, it's that. Status-seeking is built in to the human genome, and what counts as status changes with fashion - one day it's empire building, another day it's moral crusades, yet another it's extermination of the Other. You're right that 70 years is an eyeblink. Without nukes, I would expect bloodier wars than WWII every 50 to 100 years. We may still see it yet with autonomous drones, and we'll definitely see it if a realistic, reliable defence to ballistic missiles is established. I don't see a way out beyond altering the psychological utility function of humans at the genetic level, but no such technology could be created and deployed without it being used for tyranny. We might slowly breed it out of the population, but we'd need a different economic structure that doesn't rely so heavily on competition, and that's not going to happen any time soon.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > People will not stop trying to establish domination over one another. That depends on where in the world you are looking. There are plenty of places where people are not trying establish domination over neighboring countries. That something is in our nature does not mean automatically that as a society we can not transcend those elements. In fact, almost all of society is an effort at transcending those elements. We've come a long way in terms of organizing ourselves, we recognize that war is a 'means of last resort' and there are plenty of people who would not support wars of aggression.