27 ms·

I'd argue that NATO was far more the reason we did not have WW3 than nuclear capability and the power balance of MAD. Power balances tend to lead to arms races.

I'd argue that NATO was far more the reason we did not have WW3 than nuclear capability and the power balance of MAD. Power balances tend to lead to arms races. After all even with nuclear weapons and power balance we still had Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Any one of those could have escalated. A minor Venezuelan Crisis, and a shooting in Sarajevo escalated all the way up to WW1. Not to forget the role of the UK-Germany naval arms race of course.

jacquesm 9y ago
And the EU. Historically the European mainland has been the theater for these big wars and the EU has in general helped to reduce tension between the nations that had been more or less at a continuous state of war for centuries in some place or other. With the new attacks on the EU and Russian funds flowing to EU skeptical parties (to give them a nice name) there is a good chance we will see a resurgence of war on the European mainland.
hutzlibu 9y ago
WW1 happened, not because of the assassination of the crown prince of austria (which is something different from "just a shooting" though) but rather because allmost everyone was eager for war. Cheering people happily boarded the trains to the fronts. In WW2 less so and so the other main reason for no WW3 was WW2. At least for europe. People were sick of war, therefore the EU. But soviet Russia and US would have still very like fought(and so whole NATO as well), if not for the shared fright of nuclear holocaust for everyone. Also, back then, war was normal. If states had a big problem, they fought it out. Today this only works against small, weak states, but the big ones simply can't risk a war, as it becomes too disastrous for both sides. Because of technology. So yes, nuclear bombs were used twice, but then people really considered ... this is something new. This changes the rules, so maybe we have to find a way without war ...

jacquesm 9y ago

And the EU. Historically the European mainland has been the theater for these big wars and the EU has in general helped to reduce tension between the nations that had been more or less at a continuous state of war for centuries in some place or other. With the new attacks on the EU and Russian funds flowing to EU skeptical parties (to give them a nice name) there is a good chance we will see a resurgence of war on the European mainland.

hutzlibu 9y ago

WW1 happened, not because of the assassination of the crown prince of austria (which is something different from "just a shooting" though) but rather because allmost everyone was eager for war. Cheering people happily boarded the trains to the fronts. In WW2 less so and so the other main reason for no WW3 was WW2. At least for europe. People were sick of war, therefore the EU. But soviet Russia and US would have still very like fought(and so whole NATO as well), if not for the shared fright of nuclear holocaust for everyone. Also, back then, war was normal. If states had a big problem, they fought it out. Today this only works against small, weak states, but the big ones simply can't risk a war, as it becomes too disastrous for both sides. Because of technology. So yes, nuclear bombs were used twice, but then people really considered ... this is something new. This changes the rules, so maybe we have to find a way without war ...