8 ms·

Nuclear weapons are the only things that stop countries from going to war. They're why we don't have world wars any more. I think that's a big plus for nukes!

kevmo 9y ago
The USA convinced every nation it's at odds with that they should pursue nukes when it toppled Gaddafi after he voluntarily quit pursuing them.
- foobarian 9y ago
  Did you mean Saddam Hussein?
  - dboreham 9y ago
    Nope.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  The US did not topple Gaddafi. He was in the midst of civil war when NATO did some intervention, mostly led by UK and France. Gulf Arab states on the ground hunted him down, it was Qatari forces that likely killed him. The US did some drones, AWACS and coordination, but to suggest it was the US is not quit fair.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    In this case, perception is reality. If the rest of the world thinks Gaddafi was toppled because he gave up his nukes, then it’s true. At least as far as the decision to pursue a nuclear program. It’s certainly what North Korea thinks.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      "If the rest of the world thinks Gaddafi was toppled because he gave up his nukes, then it’s true" This is not what the world thinks. Gaddafi was not about to obtain nuclear status - not even close. There's no way he would have been allowed to anyhow. Libya is a fairly small country, smaller than Chicago, fragmented, spread apart, with no industry other than some oil. North Korea is not remotely comparable to Libya - I don't think the North Koreans see a true analogy.
      - Tannic 9y ago
        If by some oil you mean the largest supply of sweet crude in Africa and within very short shipping distance to the west, then yes they had some oil. And there is ample evidence the US was spearheading the ‘civil war’ using armed mercenary armies like ISIS much in the same fashion we have been seeing in Syria, both of which were outlined in the neoliberal imperialist war plan that Wesley Clarke outlined and which began full fledged after 9/11.
      - Pica_soO 9y ago
        I think the north Koreans see that any state opposing a major force in recent history got pushed over and trampled upon for oil and various reasons. Well except for Pakistan. Pakistan is a ally. Does not even have to export oil to be one. Okay, it has al quaida hide outs - but it is a really good friend. Loyal, as long as the bri- the budget doesn't run out. Totally different from afghanistan. Another great country, that totally does not get pushed around comes to mind. Israel. Surrounded by enemys, with some really nasty wars in its recent history- that suddenly stopped. Or India, dear god, that country was fractured and ripe for the taking- and yet, suddenly its independence is well respected- just like it is by all those companies and foreign powers in africa. I wonder why.(not) Delusional Intentions do not equal good outcomes, just because they timewise correlated.
        alexasmyths 9y ago
        "a major force in recent history got pushed over and trampled upon for oil " This is ridiculous. The US didn't take a drop of Iraqi, Kuwaiti or Libyan Oil. The US could take all the Oil in the Middle East in a heartbeat if it wanted to. This whole 'war for Oil' bit is mostly rubbish. 'War for continued access to energy' yes - but the us is not grabbing resources with military power, moreover, North Korea has nothing anyone wants.
  - kevmo 9y ago
    Gaddafi was one of the longest-serving leaders in the history of the entire Middle East. It is a pretty widely held opinion that he would still be in power had he kept pursuing nuclear arms. Current US Intel chief on this subject: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nukes-nuclear-libya-regime-change/ https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nu...
    - pizza 9y ago
      iirc Libya had the highest per-capita GDP / quality of living/(?) in Africa before, now there are people being sold as slaves
      - pecanpie 9y ago
        Yes, https://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-state-under-gaddafi-to-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740 https://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-sta... , and yes http://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/ http://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
      - johnchristopher 9y ago
        Isn't lybia a dictatorship in both cases anyway ?
      - kevmo 9y ago
        Yes. The USA should quit meddling in places it doesn't understand at all. "Don’t invade a country if you are too lazy to learn the language." is a good rule of thumb here. http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/why_the_worlds_biggest_military_keeps_losing_wars http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/why_the_worlds_biggest_mili...
      - alexasmyths 9y ago
        " Libya had the highest per-capita GDP / quality of living/(?) in Africa" Except for the part where Gaddaffi was using his military against half his nation in revolt.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bb88 9y ago
MAD worked when nation-states thought that nuclear weapons and their secrets should be protected at all costs. If a nation-state is doing it's dirty work through a terrorist organization, MAD no longer works.
- cocoablazing 9y ago
  The bulk of research funding in the departments I studied in went to development of technology to support identification and attribution of rogue nuclear weapons attacks, over any other peaceful or constructive use of nuclear technology. Nuclear weapons states and their force commanders are well aware of this capability. It’s been publicly advertised for decades for deterrence.
crispinb 9y ago
That's pretty overstated (there are many different types of wars, prevented by many different means), but a decent case can be made that nuclear weapons reduce the chance of some conventional wars between nuclear armed States. However, nuclear war between the US & USSR was not prevented by the existence of nuclear weapons. Even ignoring the logical absurdity this would require, the simple fact is that nuclear war nearly happened on many occasions as a result of various misadventures, and it was a matter of pure dumb luck that it didn't. It literally is just an accident of fortune that we didn't have a world-encircling cataclysm. Your and my existence hinges merely on happenstance. Huge amounts of documentation attest to this. The best single-volume account is probably Eric Schlosser's Command and Control. Nuclear weapons don't prevent war. They reduce the frequency of some types of conventional war, at the cost of making cataclysm absolutely inevitable. They will be used at some point, whether by malign choice or accident. It is only a matter of time. There are a whole bunch of other questions discussed by military historians which complicate the matter further, arguing (for example) that nuclear weapons increase the number and length of proxy wars. But even that's all a detail in the face of the manifest fact that if nuclear weapons continue to be deployed, we will have a nuclear war one day. So perhaps we should be working on some less risky peace-building efforts, while there's still time?
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  " Even ignoring the logical absurdity this would require, the simple fact is that nuclear war nearly happened on many occasions as a result of various misadventures, and it was a matter of pure dumb luck that it didn't." No - this is false. It was the existential and immense nature of the consequences of war that enabled the parties to 'back down'. Without nukes - the US and USSR would have likely started a bunch of scuffles here and there. There's a great chance that US/USSR navies duked it out over Cuba - because the consequences would have been likely very limited - unless they escalated of course. Yes, we were lucky that it didn't go down as well, but nukes have been a huge factor in keeping the war basically cold.. "some less risky peace-building efforts" - there is really no such thing. 'Balancing Power' is what creates peace for the most part.
  - nkozyra 9y ago
iamnotlarry 9y ago
Nuclear weapons are the reason Russia can invade Ukraine without consequence. And annex Crimea, and attack Georgia. They are the reason that Turkey can shoot down Russian fighters without Russia attacking Turkey. They are the reason USA can invade Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. without being counter-attacked by others. Because of nuclear weapons, we can have dozens of "wars" all the time where nobody has the courage to stop the 10Ks of deaths in each one because we're terrified of millions of deaths. I don't know how you can say it stops countries from going to war. The largest nuclear powers are in a constant state of war, daring anyone to stop them.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  10M deaths not inflicted through nuclear exchange is still better than 10M deaths that happened, from conventional exchange in a war that starts from one party retaliating after a shot down plane. Current situation sucks, but I'm not convinced removing nukes from the equation would improve it.
  - ageofwant 9y ago
    For 10M to die, 10M need to show up when the invitations to please attend the war appear in their mailboxes. I, for one, will decline. I'd rather spend my time watching the highlights on TV, between the cricket of course. Should things go bad for "my" side, I'd go camping until it all blows over. Nuclear war is going to ruin my fishing, and probably my weekend - that won't do.
    - Pica_soO 9y ago
      It will be like a invitation to work from your boss- you simply will decline, because hey basic income.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      You're assuming you'll be the attacking side. Compare with a story of a real country not so long ago. A large power invented a false reason to start a war, and then suddenly the country gets bombed all across the territory, and few days later there are shock troops in the capital. Total death toll of citizens of this country is, to date, around 0.55M [0]. Were you living there, I'm not sure you'd have time, or capacity, to "go camping until it all blows over". Now this situation - and a bunch of similar ones in recent years - only reinforces the perception that if you don't have nuclear weapons, or don't have very close friends with some, you risk being abused or outright invaded by the larger players. It's actually no surprise NK is so aggressive in their nuclear program. -- [0] - I'm counting the 0.37M of those who opposed the invasion and 0.18M who switched sides.
tzahola 9y ago
Nuclear weapons prevent war between nations wielding nuclear weapons. It did not prevent proxy wars. Also because of nuclear weapons noone dares to intervene when countries like the US or Russia invade other countries (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine). At worst they get a slap on the wrist from the UN, but they have permanent veto rights there too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
jacquesm 9y ago
There hasn't been a day without war since WW II ended. Veto power in the security council strongly correlates with being a nuclear power.
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
That depends on your definition of "world war". Currently, with the U.S.'s War on Terror it does seem like everybody is fighting somebody. Since we're on the U.S. - they have nukes and a clear technological superiority to everyone else. I don't see them doing much for world peace though.

kevmo 9y ago

The USA convinced every nation it's at odds with that they should pursue nukes when it toppled Gaddafi after he voluntarily quit pursuing them.

foobarian 9y ago
Did you mean Saddam Hussein?
- dboreham 9y ago
  Nope.
alexasmyths 9y ago
The US did not topple Gaddafi. He was in the midst of civil war when NATO did some intervention, mostly led by UK and France. Gulf Arab states on the ground hunted him down, it was Qatari forces that likely killed him. The US did some drones, AWACS and coordination, but to suggest it was the US is not quit fair.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  In this case, perception is reality. If the rest of the world thinks Gaddafi was toppled because he gave up his nukes, then it’s true. At least as far as the decision to pursue a nuclear program. It’s certainly what North Korea thinks.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    "If the rest of the world thinks Gaddafi was toppled because he gave up his nukes, then it’s true" This is not what the world thinks. Gaddafi was not about to obtain nuclear status - not even close. There's no way he would have been allowed to anyhow. Libya is a fairly small country, smaller than Chicago, fragmented, spread apart, with no industry other than some oil. North Korea is not remotely comparable to Libya - I don't think the North Koreans see a true analogy.
    - Tannic 9y ago
      If by some oil you mean the largest supply of sweet crude in Africa and within very short shipping distance to the west, then yes they had some oil. And there is ample evidence the US was spearheading the ‘civil war’ using armed mercenary armies like ISIS much in the same fashion we have been seeing in Syria, both of which were outlined in the neoliberal imperialist war plan that Wesley Clarke outlined and which began full fledged after 9/11.
    - Pica_soO 9y ago
      I think the north Koreans see that any state opposing a major force in recent history got pushed over and trampled upon for oil and various reasons. Well except for Pakistan. Pakistan is a ally. Does not even have to export oil to be one. Okay, it has al quaida hide outs - but it is a really good friend. Loyal, as long as the bri- the budget doesn't run out. Totally different from afghanistan. Another great country, that totally does not get pushed around comes to mind. Israel. Surrounded by enemys, with some really nasty wars in its recent history- that suddenly stopped. Or India, dear god, that country was fractured and ripe for the taking- and yet, suddenly its independence is well respected- just like it is by all those companies and foreign powers in africa. I wonder why.(not) Delusional Intentions do not equal good outcomes, just because they timewise correlated.
      - alexasmyths 9y ago
        "a major force in recent history got pushed over and trampled upon for oil " This is ridiculous. The US didn't take a drop of Iraqi, Kuwaiti or Libyan Oil. The US could take all the Oil in the Middle East in a heartbeat if it wanted to. This whole 'war for Oil' bit is mostly rubbish. 'War for continued access to energy' yes - but the us is not grabbing resources with military power, moreover, North Korea has nothing anyone wants.
- kevmo 9y ago
  Gaddafi was one of the longest-serving leaders in the history of the entire Middle East. It is a pretty widely held opinion that he would still be in power had he kept pursuing nuclear arms. Current US Intel chief on this subject: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nukes-nuclear-libya-regime-change/ https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nu...
  - pizza 9y ago
    iirc Libya had the highest per-capita GDP / quality of living/(?) in Africa before, now there are people being sold as slaves
    - pecanpie 9y ago
      Yes, https://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-state-under-gaddafi-to-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740 https://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-sta... , and yes http://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/ http://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
    - johnchristopher 9y ago
      Isn't lybia a dictatorship in both cases anyway ?
    - kevmo 9y ago
      Yes. The USA should quit meddling in places it doesn't understand at all. "Don’t invade a country if you are too lazy to learn the language." is a good rule of thumb here. http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/why_the_worlds_biggest_military_keeps_losing_wars http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/why_the_worlds_biggest_mili...
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      " Libya had the highest per-capita GDP / quality of living/(?) in Africa" Except for the part where Gaddaffi was using his military against half his nation in revolt.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bb88 9y ago

MAD worked when nation-states thought that nuclear weapons and their secrets should be protected at all costs. If a nation-state is doing it's dirty work through a terrorist organization, MAD no longer works.

cocoablazing 9y ago
The bulk of research funding in the departments I studied in went to development of technology to support identification and attribution of rogue nuclear weapons attacks, over any other peaceful or constructive use of nuclear technology. Nuclear weapons states and their force commanders are well aware of this capability. It’s been publicly advertised for decades for deterrence.

crispinb 9y ago

That's pretty overstated (there are many different types of wars, prevented by many different means), but a decent case can be made that nuclear weapons reduce the chance of some conventional wars between nuclear armed States. However, nuclear war between the US & USSR was not prevented by the existence of nuclear weapons. Even ignoring the logical absurdity this would require, the simple fact is that nuclear war nearly happened on many occasions as a result of various misadventures, and it was a matter of pure dumb luck that it didn't. It literally is just an accident of fortune that we didn't have a world-encircling cataclysm. Your and my existence hinges merely on happenstance. Huge amounts of documentation attest to this. The best single-volume account is probably Eric Schlosser's Command and Control. Nuclear weapons don't prevent war. They reduce the frequency of some types of conventional war, at the cost of making cataclysm absolutely inevitable. They will be used at some point, whether by malign choice or accident. It is only a matter of time. There are a whole bunch of other questions discussed by military historians which complicate the matter further, arguing (for example) that nuclear weapons increase the number and length of proxy wars. But even that's all a detail in the face of the manifest fact that if nuclear weapons continue to be deployed, we will have a nuclear war one day. So perhaps we should be working on some less risky peace-building efforts, while there's still time?

alexasmyths 9y ago
" Even ignoring the logical absurdity this would require, the simple fact is that nuclear war nearly happened on many occasions as a result of various misadventures, and it was a matter of pure dumb luck that it didn't." No - this is false. It was the existential and immense nature of the consequences of war that enabled the parties to 'back down'. Without nukes - the US and USSR would have likely started a bunch of scuffles here and there. There's a great chance that US/USSR navies duked it out over Cuba - because the consequences would have been likely very limited - unless they escalated of course. Yes, we were lucky that it didn't go down as well, but nukes have been a huge factor in keeping the war basically cold.. "some less risky peace-building efforts" - there is really no such thing. 'Balancing Power' is what creates peace for the most part.
- nkozyra 9y ago

iamnotlarry 9y ago

Nuclear weapons are the reason Russia can invade Ukraine without consequence. And annex Crimea, and attack Georgia. They are the reason that Turkey can shoot down Russian fighters without Russia attacking Turkey. They are the reason USA can invade Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. without being counter-attacked by others. Because of nuclear weapons, we can have dozens of "wars" all the time where nobody has the courage to stop the 10Ks of deaths in each one because we're terrified of millions of deaths. I don't know how you can say it stops countries from going to war. The largest nuclear powers are in a constant state of war, daring anyone to stop them.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 9y ago
10M deaths not inflicted through nuclear exchange is still better than 10M deaths that happened, from conventional exchange in a war that starts from one party retaliating after a shot down plane. Current situation sucks, but I'm not convinced removing nukes from the equation would improve it.
- ageofwant 9y ago
  For 10M to die, 10M need to show up when the invitations to please attend the war appear in their mailboxes. I, for one, will decline. I'd rather spend my time watching the highlights on TV, between the cricket of course. Should things go bad for "my" side, I'd go camping until it all blows over. Nuclear war is going to ruin my fishing, and probably my weekend - that won't do.
  - Pica_soO 9y ago
    It will be like a invitation to work from your boss- you simply will decline, because hey basic income.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    You're assuming you'll be the attacking side. Compare with a story of a real country not so long ago. A large power invented a false reason to start a war, and then suddenly the country gets bombed all across the territory, and few days later there are shock troops in the capital. Total death toll of citizens of this country is, to date, around 0.55M [0]. Were you living there, I'm not sure you'd have time, or capacity, to "go camping until it all blows over". Now this situation - and a bunch of similar ones in recent years - only reinforces the perception that if you don't have nuclear weapons, or don't have very close friends with some, you risk being abused or outright invaded by the larger players. It's actually no surprise NK is so aggressive in their nuclear program. -- [0] - I'm counting the 0.37M of those who opposed the invasion and 0.18M who switched sides.

tzahola 9y ago

Nuclear weapons prevent war between nations wielding nuclear weapons. It did not prevent proxy wars. Also because of nuclear weapons noone dares to intervene when countries like the US or Russia invade other countries (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine). At worst they get a slap on the wrist from the UN, but they have permanent veto rights there too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

jacquesm 9y ago

There hasn't been a day without war since WW II ended. Veto power in the security council strongly correlates with being a nuclear power.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

That depends on your definition of "world war". Currently, with the U.S.'s War on Terror it does seem like everybody is fighting somebody. Since we're on the U.S. - they have nukes and a clear technological superiority to everyone else. I don't see them doing much for world peace though.