4 ms·
What's the realistic approach to this though? I don't know anything about this area, but to me it seems like hoping for 20 countries having 50 each would be eff
by notheguyouthink 9y ago
What's the realistic approach to this though? I don't know anything about this area, but to me it seems like hoping for 20 countries having 50 each would be effectively the same as hoping for 20 countries having 0 each.
That is to say, we're in the arms race because each country did have N each. But then one country had N+1, and so the others raced for N+2, and so on. If we hoped for 50 each, wouldn't it drop back to the same pattern, and someone would become 50+1?
Note that 4,000 of course doesn't solve the N+1 issue, but my point is if you're going to aim for 50 - I'm not sure what problems it solves. May as well shoot for 0, no? 0 seems equally impossible to me as 50, but at least it solves a single problem.. nukes, in general.
- raquo 9y agoYou can't just un-invent nukes. They're there, they provide nuclear deterrence. They will continue to exist no matter how many countries "agree" to stop using them. Regardless of whether you have them, there is always a chance that someone might still keep the nukes in secret despite what they agreed to. No one would want such a risk if they have an option to avoid it.
- notheguyouthink 9y agoOh I agree completely, but that's sort of my point. The OP's solution seemed to be making everyone have 50 instead of 4,000. That seemed both impossible, and a weird goal. If you're going to try for the impossible, shouldn't we aim for 0? I don't ever see us stopping N+1 nukes though.