4 ms·

Nuclear weapons? Their existence is a blight on humanity. MAD hasn’t prevented wars, only caused them to be outsourced to countries no one cared about like Viet

Nuclear weapons? Their existence is a blight on humanity. MAD hasn’t prevented wars, only caused them to be outsourced to countries no one cared about like Vietnam and Afghanistan. It is only through dumb luck that a superpower has not destroyed the world by accident The military-industrial complex: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
unabridged 9y ago
>MAD hasn’t prevented wars I disagree. While yes there were still proxy wars for the last 50 years, there has been no all out world war. Considering that for the 500 years before WW2 there was wars nearly every 20 years between major powers, this is an improvement.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  That’s because Europe realized it could not sustain another war of that destructiveness. So there have been no wars in Europe, but I don’t think it’s impossible that another WW1 like crisis could occur again, especially with tensions high between China, The US and Russia.
  - Ixio 9y ago
    > That’s because Europe realized it could not sustain another war of that destructiveness. That's what people in Europe thought after WW1, yet WW2 happened. I hope this time you're right.
  - unabridged 9y ago
    Tensions aren't really high between China, US, and Russia. We are all huge trading partners, and no one wants to see the money stop flowing. In any time besides modern history they would be considered friendly.
paulddraper 9y ago
Without question, atomic weapons summarily ended the bloodiest war in all of human history. Since then, they have limited war to insurgencies, rebel groups, and other mostly internal conflicts. You think North Korea (or China for that matter) would've stayed within their borders without nuclear powers following their every move?
- JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
  >Without question, atomic weapons summarily ended the bloodiest war in all of human history. There are many questions about that, many people hold the opinion that the nuclear weapons did not in fact end the war. Whether or not that is true, I do not pretend to have the expertise to say, however saying there is no question is flat out wrong and ignoring the debate.
  - frandroid 9y ago
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
    - paulddraper 9y ago
      This stretches the imagination. Surrender came mere days after the A-bomb was used, but this timing was purely coincidental? The Empire of Japan was willing to die fighting a dominant superpower for every blade of grass, but a second superpower (one hurt far worse in the European theatre) suddenly tipped the imaginary balance? There's an argument for the A-bomb being effective but unnecessary to the end the war; but this article's view that it had nothing to do with it is seriously by no honest historian.
  - fyi1183 9y ago
    What's also pretty clear is that nuclear weapons had nothing to do with ending WW2 in Europe.
    - 9y ago
1024core 9y ago
>> MAD hasn’t prevented wars, If North Korea didn't have nukes, you bet we would have invaded them by now.
- fragmede 9y ago
  Between the close of the Korean war in 1953 (though no peace treaty was ever signed) and 2006, when North Korea's first tested an atomic bomb, the US did not invade North Korea for the same reason it has not invaded today, which is not due to DPRK's nuclear capability. Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is a scant 35 miles from the North Korean border, and North Korea has an unknown amount of conventional artillery pointed at South Korea, enough to kill millions of South Koreans. If the US were to invade North Korea, Seoul, and the surrounding areas would be obliterated. That North Korea now has nuclear weapons changes things a bit, but the nukes weren't previously the thing holding the US back from invading North Korea.
- rangibaby 9y ago
  I'm not so sure. The Korean war was an absolute disaster for all involved. Three years and a million dead people for nothing (or less than nothing if you consider the amount of sheer destruction). I think that has been the main rationale for avoiding another war in Korea since then. The "perfect" time to do it would have been in the 90s when China was still poor enough to ignore and Russia was still self-combusting. Things are different now. Compare Russia's non-response to the destruction of Yugoslavia to their direct role in Syria, both diplomatically (red line etc) and militarily. I think killing Gaddafi was NATO's biggest disaster in a long time (if not the worst so far). It was a clear example to DPRK that they must have a capable ICBM. It was also the last straw for Putin which spurred him onto more aggressive actions like taking Crimea and using "fake news" farms.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

unabridged 9y ago

>MAD hasn’t prevented wars I disagree. While yes there were still proxy wars for the last 50 years, there has been no all out world war. Considering that for the 500 years before WW2 there was wars nearly every 20 years between major powers, this is an improvement.

Synaesthesia 9y ago
That’s because Europe realized it could not sustain another war of that destructiveness. So there have been no wars in Europe, but I don’t think it’s impossible that another WW1 like crisis could occur again, especially with tensions high between China, The US and Russia.
- Ixio 9y ago
  > That’s because Europe realized it could not sustain another war of that destructiveness. That's what people in Europe thought after WW1, yet WW2 happened. I hope this time you're right.
- unabridged 9y ago
  Tensions aren't really high between China, US, and Russia. We are all huge trading partners, and no one wants to see the money stop flowing. In any time besides modern history they would be considered friendly.

paulddraper 9y ago

Without question, atomic weapons summarily ended the bloodiest war in all of human history. Since then, they have limited war to insurgencies, rebel groups, and other mostly internal conflicts. You think North Korea (or China for that matter) would've stayed within their borders without nuclear powers following their every move?

JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
>Without question, atomic weapons summarily ended the bloodiest war in all of human history. There are many questions about that, many people hold the opinion that the nuclear weapons did not in fact end the war. Whether or not that is true, I do not pretend to have the expertise to say, however saying there is no question is flat out wrong and ignoring the debate.
- frandroid 9y ago
  http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    This stretches the imagination. Surrender came mere days after the A-bomb was used, but this timing was purely coincidental? The Empire of Japan was willing to die fighting a dominant superpower for every blade of grass, but a second superpower (one hurt far worse in the European theatre) suddenly tipped the imaginary balance? There's an argument for the A-bomb being effective but unnecessary to the end the war; but this article's view that it had nothing to do with it is seriously by no honest historian.
- fyi1183 9y ago
  What's also pretty clear is that nuclear weapons had nothing to do with ending WW2 in Europe.
  - 9y ago

1024core 9y ago

>> MAD hasn’t prevented wars, If North Korea didn't have nukes, you bet we would have invaded them by now.

fragmede 9y ago
Between the close of the Korean war in 1953 (though no peace treaty was ever signed) and 2006, when North Korea's first tested an atomic bomb, the US did not invade North Korea for the same reason it has not invaded today, which is not due to DPRK's nuclear capability. Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is a scant 35 miles from the North Korean border, and North Korea has an unknown amount of conventional artillery pointed at South Korea, enough to kill millions of South Koreans. If the US were to invade North Korea, Seoul, and the surrounding areas would be obliterated. That North Korea now has nuclear weapons changes things a bit, but the nukes weren't previously the thing holding the US back from invading North Korea.
rangibaby 9y ago
I'm not so sure. The Korean war was an absolute disaster for all involved. Three years and a million dead people for nothing (or less than nothing if you consider the amount of sheer destruction). I think that has been the main rationale for avoiding another war in Korea since then. The "perfect" time to do it would have been in the 90s when China was still poor enough to ignore and Russia was still self-combusting. Things are different now. Compare Russia's non-response to the destruction of Yugoslavia to their direct role in Syria, both diplomatically (red line etc) and militarily. I think killing Gaddafi was NATO's biggest disaster in a long time (if not the worst so far). It was a clear example to DPRK that they must have a capable ICBM. It was also the last straw for Putin which spurred him onto more aggressive actions like taking Crimea and using "fake news" farms.