5 ms·

Article makes the point that the symbol commonly used for peace, originally was a logo for nuclear disarmament. Well, the common-use meaning is not that far apa

by a_d 8y ago

Article makes the point that the symbol commonly used for peace, originally was a logo for nuclear disarmament. Well, the common-use meaning is not that far apart :) A nuke-free Earth would be one of the biggest, if not the biggest contributors to world peace. (From the tone of the article, I was worried that the symbol originally meant something quite different from what it has come to mean today. But no. Same ballpark.)

nothrabannosir 8y ago
It would be a symptom of it, but not necessarily a cause. It is reasonable to claim that without mutually assured destruction, the Cold War could have been a warm one. Of course, in a peaceful world, who needs nukes. But is this world peaceful yet?
- a_d 8y ago
  Maybe we come at it from a different side: what/which manmade things can cause end of the world? (I know only 2: climate change and nukes)
  - posting2fast 8y ago
    I feel like I'm being obvious, but, totalitarianism? That is, if "world" is to refer to more than the physical planet, or the mere existence of ecosystems in it, but also things like human thought and creativity. As human agency gets restricted and channeled in infantilized or even outright violently abusive ways, human thought evaporates along with it. Too many people can't already stick with issues they identified with the world for 5 minutes, not to mention the required decades. What's in store for the future is not being able to express it anymore, at all, not even clumsily, to not even be able to form a solid internal representation, never having been in contact with any of the tools and concepts required for that other than to mock and other them. This can already be seen in some people, but the "fun" really begins when that is true for everybody. That's the worst case scenario for me. Compared to (!) that, this is how I feel about climate change and nuclear war: https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/there-will-come-soft-rains https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/there-will-come-soft-rai...
  - bloak 8y ago
    Assuming you mean extinction of mankind or end of civilisation, here are another two: genetically engineered diseases, artificial intelligence (AI). There's also voluntary extinction (vhemt.org), of course, but that's not really a "cause".
    - mikro2nd 8y ago
      I'd add nanotechnology -- a "grey goo" scenario.
- bumholio 8y ago
  It's very hard to break that cycle when the only way to become a legitimate world power is to obtain nuclear weapons. There are many examples: Pakistan vs Iran, Israel, North Korea, they all prove how obtaining nuclear weapons is the right strategic choice if you want to matter in the international arena. There is zero commitment from the major nuclear powers for an eventual complete denuclearization, the only thing they agree about is that they should be the only ones having nuclear weapons. As long as this hypocritical game goes on, the world will gain more, not less, nuclear states. And we'll keep hearing this tune: "The world is too dangerous to aim for complete denuclearization, look, country X just became nuclear illegally by breaking [bullshit nuclear treaty we designed to keep our geopolitical edge]".
  - imbokodo 8y ago
    > There is zero commitment from the major nuclear powers for an eventual complete denuclearization The nuclear powers agreed as part of the 1970 treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly article 6, that they would pursue a complete nuclear disarmament. Of course, they have not fulfilled their obligations over the past half century and non-nuclear powers have complained about this, and the International Court of Justice agreed with them in 1996. A UN resolution in 1999 condemned the US for restarting a nuclear race - only the US, Israel, Albania and Micronesia voted against it. Bush withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. The US has been in a nuclear arms race since then.
    - herbst 8y ago
      Stupid thing is. As long as the US still positions itself as nuclear force and world police there will always be other states that try to hold against this force. Even personally I feel saver knowing other countries are able to defend them self, making it less likely to end up as collateral damage for the US democratisation process.
    - dotancohen 8y ago
      This is the crux of the Iran issue. Look at what country borders Iran to the east. What has the US done there in the past few years? Now look at what country borders Iran to the west. What has the US done there in the past few years? I say this as an Israeli who has genuine concern for my children's well being. Iran has legitimate nuclear ambitions. The chain leading up to those ambitions is difficult for some people to admit, and the direction that those ambitions are pushing Iran may very well harm my family. But I don't blame the Iranians themselves for the position that they are in.
- Torwald 8y ago
  Also the existence of nuclear weapons could be a force towards world peace, because they force the powers to behave more peacefully, because wars have become to expensive.
- gaius 8y ago
  It is reasonable to claim that without mutually assured destruction, the Cold War could have been a warm one. CND et al never campaigned for the Soviets to disarm, for them it was always about clearing the way for a Soviet expansion westwards.
  - teh_klev 8y ago
    CND member since 1983 here. I'm sorry but you're completely wrong. CND also supported global (including the Warsaw Pact) nuclear disarmament for as long as I've been a member.
    - gaius 8y ago
      ... while knowing perfectly well that without nukes in Western Europe there was nothing to stop the Third Shock Army pouring through the Fulda Gap and conquering the West by entirely conventional warfare. So you are being disingenuous.
      - teh_klev 8y ago
        > So you are being disingenuous. I beg your pardon? I'm not going to bother granting you a response, you seem to have a political axe to grind and I don't do political flame wars.
      - dang 8y ago
        If you keep breaking the site guidelines we are going to ban you. I don't even know how many warnings we've given you at this point, but we've cut you way more slack than most. Nevertheless the slack is finite. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
arghwhat 8y ago
Countries wage war with whatever tools they have. We waged war before nuclear weapons, we wage war after. Nuclear weapons affect the collateral damage of war, but does not by itself disturb the peace. Removing them does not make us more peaceful. (I am not pro nuclear weapons, but that's because I don't want Trump to have the power to accidentally the whole world because he couldn't keep his short, fat fingers from a big red button he couldn't read the label for. I do not, however, believe their removal would positively affect world peace at the current time.)
- bumholio 8y ago
  > I don't want Trump to have the power to accidentally the whole world because he couldn't keep his short, fat fingers from a big red button he couldn't read the label for. I do not, however, believe their removal would positively affect world peace Therein lies the problem with nuclear weapons: they will never be used to win a world war by a calculating Hitler-like figure, but they can be used to kill most people on earth by an irrational Osama-like leader. And since democracy and most other political systems frequently promote irrational figures in positions of authority, nuclear weapons (or rather, large nuclear stockpiles) pose a fundamental new problem for humanity, with no precedent in the history of war: catastrophic negative externalities for political insanity. The consequences of wars are no longer limited to the belligerent parties, but exported thought the world to peaceful and neutral nations. It's therefore rational for anybody to seek world denuclearization. As a side comment, a good example or irrational behavior is the US treatment of Iran - a country that agreed not to proliferate only to be currently jerked around - versus the overtures made to North Korea after it obtained nuclear weapons. The political value of nuclear weapons becomes clear - although the reasons why US is pursuing this strategy of pushing states to proliferation is much less clear, and have to do with irrational internal US politics.
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    > Therein lies the problem with nuclear weapons: they will never be used to win a world war by a calculating Hitler-like figure, but they can be used to kill most people on earth by an irrational Osama-like leader. Yes, but the reason that this does affect the existing threat to peace is that an "irrational Osama-like leader" will wage war and slaughter regardless. Nuclear weapons massively increased the collateral damage, but it was not what disrupted the peace in the first place. Unless you consider "living in a cozy first world country while ignoring all war and famine" to be "peace". If that's the case, then yes, the collateral of nuclear war would suddenly be forcing you to be part of the world. But again, I do not like these toys either. I just find the statement that they by themselves affect peace to be wrong.
douglaswlance 8y ago
Nukes have created world peace, the likes of which are were totally unknown throughout all of human history. You're not considering second and third order consequences. When two nations can unilaterally destroy the earth, they are greatly incentivized to use diplomacy over warfare.
- lrdd 8y ago
  Also, as a result of MAD the main risk of nuclear weapons would be operation by a terrorist group as opposed to a nation - who wouldn't be affected by a national nuclear disarmament and wouldn't be able to have retaliation in the same way
- stareatgoats 8y ago
  And when the incentive to use diplomacy is lost to some perceived first-strike capability we face extinction. You're not wrong, but the argument is not that simple (either).
- mikorym 8y ago
  I don't think this warrants a downvote—nuclear deterrence is as valid an argument as the parent comment which states that nuclear disarmament may contribute to peace.
nmeofthestate 8y ago
>A nuke-free Earth would be one of the biggest, if not the biggest contributors to world peace. WW2 started on a nuke-free Earth, and indeed finished with the use of nuclear weaponry. The knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons wont go away, so the next World War, with no-one having nuclear weapons would probably take 4 years less time to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons (rather than MAD, it would be a furious race to build and use nukes first).

by a_d 8y ago

nothrabannosir 8y ago

It would be a symptom of it, but not necessarily a cause. It is reasonable to claim that without mutually assured destruction, the Cold War could have been a warm one. Of course, in a peaceful world, who needs nukes. But is this world peaceful yet?

a_d 8y ago
Maybe we come at it from a different side: what/which manmade things can cause end of the world? (I know only 2: climate change and nukes)
- posting2fast 8y ago
  I feel like I'm being obvious, but, totalitarianism? That is, if "world" is to refer to more than the physical planet, or the mere existence of ecosystems in it, but also things like human thought and creativity. As human agency gets restricted and channeled in infantilized or even outright violently abusive ways, human thought evaporates along with it. Too many people can't already stick with issues they identified with the world for 5 minutes, not to mention the required decades. What's in store for the future is not being able to express it anymore, at all, not even clumsily, to not even be able to form a solid internal representation, never having been in contact with any of the tools and concepts required for that other than to mock and other them. This can already be seen in some people, but the "fun" really begins when that is true for everybody. That's the worst case scenario for me. Compared to (!) that, this is how I feel about climate change and nuclear war: https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/there-will-come-soft-rains https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/there-will-come-soft-rai...
- bloak 8y ago
  Assuming you mean extinction of mankind or end of civilisation, here are another two: genetically engineered diseases, artificial intelligence (AI). There's also voluntary extinction (vhemt.org), of course, but that's not really a "cause".
  - mikro2nd 8y ago
    I'd add nanotechnology -- a "grey goo" scenario.
bumholio 8y ago
It's very hard to break that cycle when the only way to become a legitimate world power is to obtain nuclear weapons. There are many examples: Pakistan vs Iran, Israel, North Korea, they all prove how obtaining nuclear weapons is the right strategic choice if you want to matter in the international arena. There is zero commitment from the major nuclear powers for an eventual complete denuclearization, the only thing they agree about is that they should be the only ones having nuclear weapons. As long as this hypocritical game goes on, the world will gain more, not less, nuclear states. And we'll keep hearing this tune: "The world is too dangerous to aim for complete denuclearization, look, country X just became nuclear illegally by breaking [bullshit nuclear treaty we designed to keep our geopolitical edge]".
- imbokodo 8y ago
  > There is zero commitment from the major nuclear powers for an eventual complete denuclearization The nuclear powers agreed as part of the 1970 treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly article 6, that they would pursue a complete nuclear disarmament. Of course, they have not fulfilled their obligations over the past half century and non-nuclear powers have complained about this, and the International Court of Justice agreed with them in 1996. A UN resolution in 1999 condemned the US for restarting a nuclear race - only the US, Israel, Albania and Micronesia voted against it. Bush withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. The US has been in a nuclear arms race since then.
  - herbst 8y ago
    Stupid thing is. As long as the US still positions itself as nuclear force and world police there will always be other states that try to hold against this force. Even personally I feel saver knowing other countries are able to defend them self, making it less likely to end up as collateral damage for the US democratisation process.
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    This is the crux of the Iran issue. Look at what country borders Iran to the east. What has the US done there in the past few years? Now look at what country borders Iran to the west. What has the US done there in the past few years? I say this as an Israeli who has genuine concern for my children's well being. Iran has legitimate nuclear ambitions. The chain leading up to those ambitions is difficult for some people to admit, and the direction that those ambitions are pushing Iran may very well harm my family. But I don't blame the Iranians themselves for the position that they are in.
Torwald 8y ago
Also the existence of nuclear weapons could be a force towards world peace, because they force the powers to behave more peacefully, because wars have become to expensive.
gaius 8y ago
It is reasonable to claim that without mutually assured destruction, the Cold War could have been a warm one. CND et al never campaigned for the Soviets to disarm, for them it was always about clearing the way for a Soviet expansion westwards.
- teh_klev 8y ago
  CND member since 1983 here. I'm sorry but you're completely wrong. CND also supported global (including the Warsaw Pact) nuclear disarmament for as long as I've been a member.
  - gaius 8y ago
    ... while knowing perfectly well that without nukes in Western Europe there was nothing to stop the Third Shock Army pouring through the Fulda Gap and conquering the West by entirely conventional warfare. So you are being disingenuous.
    - teh_klev 8y ago
      > So you are being disingenuous. I beg your pardon? I'm not going to bother granting you a response, you seem to have a political axe to grind and I don't do political flame wars.
    - dang 8y ago
      If you keep breaking the site guidelines we are going to ban you. I don't even know how many warnings we've given you at this point, but we've cut you way more slack than most. Nevertheless the slack is finite. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

arghwhat 8y ago

Countries wage war with whatever tools they have. We waged war before nuclear weapons, we wage war after. Nuclear weapons affect the collateral damage of war, but does not by itself disturb the peace. Removing them does not make us more peaceful. (I am not pro nuclear weapons, but that's because I don't want Trump to have the power to accidentally the whole world because he couldn't keep his short, fat fingers from a big red button he couldn't read the label for. I do not, however, believe their removal would positively affect world peace at the current time.)

bumholio 8y ago
> I don't want Trump to have the power to accidentally the whole world because he couldn't keep his short, fat fingers from a big red button he couldn't read the label for. I do not, however, believe their removal would positively affect world peace Therein lies the problem with nuclear weapons: they will never be used to win a world war by a calculating Hitler-like figure, but they can be used to kill most people on earth by an irrational Osama-like leader. And since democracy and most other political systems frequently promote irrational figures in positions of authority, nuclear weapons (or rather, large nuclear stockpiles) pose a fundamental new problem for humanity, with no precedent in the history of war: catastrophic negative externalities for political insanity. The consequences of wars are no longer limited to the belligerent parties, but exported thought the world to peaceful and neutral nations. It's therefore rational for anybody to seek world denuclearization. As a side comment, a good example or irrational behavior is the US treatment of Iran - a country that agreed not to proliferate only to be currently jerked around - versus the overtures made to North Korea after it obtained nuclear weapons. The political value of nuclear weapons becomes clear - although the reasons why US is pursuing this strategy of pushing states to proliferation is much less clear, and have to do with irrational internal US politics.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  > Therein lies the problem with nuclear weapons: they will never be used to win a world war by a calculating Hitler-like figure, but they can be used to kill most people on earth by an irrational Osama-like leader. Yes, but the reason that this does affect the existing threat to peace is that an "irrational Osama-like leader" will wage war and slaughter regardless. Nuclear weapons massively increased the collateral damage, but it was not what disrupted the peace in the first place. Unless you consider "living in a cozy first world country while ignoring all war and famine" to be "peace". If that's the case, then yes, the collateral of nuclear war would suddenly be forcing you to be part of the world. But again, I do not like these toys either. I just find the statement that they by themselves affect peace to be wrong.

douglaswlance 8y ago

Nukes have created world peace, the likes of which are were totally unknown throughout all of human history. You're not considering second and third order consequences. When two nations can unilaterally destroy the earth, they are greatly incentivized to use diplomacy over warfare.

lrdd 8y ago
Also, as a result of MAD the main risk of nuclear weapons would be operation by a terrorist group as opposed to a nation - who wouldn't be affected by a national nuclear disarmament and wouldn't be able to have retaliation in the same way
stareatgoats 8y ago
And when the incentive to use diplomacy is lost to some perceived first-strike capability we face extinction. You're not wrong, but the argument is not that simple (either).
mikorym 8y ago
I don't think this warrants a downvote—nuclear deterrence is as valid an argument as the parent comment which states that nuclear disarmament may contribute to peace.

nmeofthestate 8y ago

>A nuke-free Earth would be one of the biggest, if not the biggest contributors to world peace. WW2 started on a nuke-free Earth, and indeed finished with the use of nuclear weaponry. The knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons wont go away, so the next World War, with no-one having nuclear weapons would probably take 4 years less time to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons (rather than MAD, it would be a furious race to build and use nukes first).